301 Background

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is designed to address unfair foreign practices affecting U.S. commerce. It grants USTR a range of authorities to investigate unfair trade practices and to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements.

Under 301, the U.S. government may impose trade sanctions on foreign countries that engage in acts that are burdensome to U.S. commerce or that violate trade agreements.

The law does not limit the scope of investigations, but it does mention several categories of activities that are subject to 301 action, including:

(1) a violation that denies U.S. rights under a trade agreement

(2) an “unjustifiable” action that “burdens or restricts” U.S. commerce

(3) an “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” action that “burdens or restricts” U.S. commerce.

“Commerce” is defined to include goods, services, and investment.

Previous examples of 301 investigations include investigations into China’s technology transfer practices, Vietnam’s currency manipulation, and Digital Services Taxes in various countries.

Nicaragua Investigation

The investigation into Nicaragua’s acts follows numerous credible reports that the Ortega-Murillo regime engages in human rights and labor rights violations and dismantling the rule of law. Activities cited by USTR include:

• Politically-motivated arrests and imprisonments
• Repression of members of religious groups and non-governmental organizations
• Extrajudicial killings
• Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
• Restrictions on freedom of expression and movement
• Violence against members of marginalized groups
• Repression of freedom of association and collective bargaining
• Forced labor, human trafficking, eliminating legislative and judicial independence
• Spurious seizures of property, arbitrary fines and rulings, and other harmful acts

According to USTR, the Government of Nicaragua has not responded to concerns raised by the United States or others. The stated goal of the investigation is to address and resolve these concerns to ensure U.S. companies and workers are treated fairly and with equal respect under a rule of law system.

USTR is seeking public comments on this matter, which are due January 8, 2025. The agency will also hold a public hearing on January 16, 2025.

Diaz Trade Law has extensive expertise in Section 301 matters. If you have questions about Section 301 investigations or would like to participate in this investigation, get in touch at info@diaztradelaw.com.

Learn more:

• Why Should Your Product Not Be on The 301 List
• USTR Targets Vietnam in 301 Investigation
• Section 301 Digital Services Taxes
• Know Your Supply Chain: Forced Labor
• Forced Labor Guidance: What Importers Need to Know
• Bloomberg Law: U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor

301 Investigation Background

In August 2017, USTR initiated an investigation into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The agency released a report of its findings in March 2018 and in June 2018 began imposing additional duties on products of China in four tranches.

Under the Trade Act of 1974, the USTR is required to conduct a four-year review if they receive an appropriate request to continue an action taken under Section 301. The agency is required to review:

• (A) the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of section 301 of (i) such action, and (ii) other actions that could be taken (including actions against other products or services), and
• (B) the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.

In accordance with this requirement, USTR announced in May 2022 that it was commencing this review and opened a docket for interested persons to submit comments.

The agency received nearly 1,500 comments. Throughout 2023 and early 2024, USTR and the Section 301 Committee (a USTR-led, interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee) held numerous meetings with agency experts to consider the comments received.

In May 2024, USTR issued a formal proposal in the Federal Register to increase tariffs on specific products in strategic sectors. The agency considered more than 1,100 public comments.

On September 18, 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative announced certain modifications to the actions taken in the Section 301 investigation including a list of subheadings eligible for consideration of temporary exclusion under an exclusion process for certain machinery used in domestic manufacturing.

Machinery Exclusions

This announcement sets forth the process to request exclusions for certain machinery used in domestic manufacturing. The exclusion process covers particular machinery used in domestic manufacturing classified within a subheading under chapters 84 and 85 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  A list of eligible subheadings is available here.

The docket for submitting exclusions opened on October 15, 2024. The deadline for submitting exclusion requests is March 31, 2025.

Each request must identify a particular product, and provide supporting data and the rationale for the exclusion. USTR will evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis. USTR will accept exclusion requests on a rolling basis and will periodically announce decisions on pending requests.

What Importers Should Do

Importers can make their voices heard by filing an exclusion request with USTR. Diaz Trade Law can help prepare filings and assist importers in understanding how these exclusions may impact their business.

Contact Diaz Trade Law for assistance at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

Learn more:

• Upcoming Deadline to File Comments: USTRs Section 301 China Tariff Exclusions Proceeding
• White House Announces Further Section 301 Tariff Hikes on Chinese Goods
• ICYMI: USTR Announces Extension of Reinstated Section 301 Exclusions and COVID-Related Exclusions
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan

The exclusions refer to additional duties imposed on goods from China pursuant to an earlier Section 301 investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.

In December 2022, the agency determined to extend the exclusions and extended them again in May 2023 and September 2023 through December 31, 2023. This latest Federal Register notice announces the agency’s determination to further extend the exclusions until May 31, 2024 and open up the ability to comment on the exclusions. The public docket will open on January 22, 2024 and will close on February 21, 2024.

This latest extension provides USTR additional time to orderly phase out certain exclusions and align others with the objectives determined during the agency’s ongoing four-year review of Section 301 China tariffs.

The agency also announced that it will open a docket to gather public comments on whether to further extend particular exclusions. The focus of the evaluation will be on:

• The availability of products covered by the exclusion from sources outside China
• Efforts undertaken to source products covered by the exclusion
• Why additional time is needed
• On what timeline, if any, the sourcing of products covered by the exclusion is likely to shift outside of China

USTR will also consider whether or not extending the exclusion will impact U.S. interests.

 Exclusion Background

In August 2017, USTR initiated an investigation into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The agency released a report of its findings in March 2018 and in June 2018 began imposing additional duties on products of China in four tranches. The USTR established a process by which U.S. stakeholders could request the exclusion of particular products subject to additional duties. Starting in November 2019, the agency invited public comments on whether to extend particular expulsions it had granted. Through this process, 352 exclusions have been extended.

 COVID Exclusions

In March 2020, USTR requested public comments on proposed modifications to exclude from additional duties certain medical-care products related to the U.S. response to COVID. USTR granted exclusions for 99 products. Throughout 2021 and 2022, USTR sought and evaluated public comments and extended 77 of the COVID-related exclusions through September 30, 2023.

 Statutory Four-Year Review

Under the Trade Act of 1974, the USTR is required to conduct a four-year review if they receive an appropriate request to continue an action taken under Section 301. The agency is required to review:

• (A) the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of section 301 of (i) such action, and (ii) other actions that could be taken (including actions against other products or services), and
• (B) the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.

In accordance with this requirement, USTR announced in May 2022 that it was commencing this review. The review is ongoing and there is no statutory deadline. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has stated that she does not expect any revisions to the Section 301 duties until the four-year review is complete.

What Importers Should Do

Importers should continue to follow this review and prepare for revisions to the Section 301 duties. For importers being hit by additional duties it is crucial to know when the additional duties are effective and must be paid. We urge importers to clearly understand which duties their products are subject to and develop a business plan on how to prepare for additional import costs.

To make your voice heard, ensure you provide a comment to the USTR from January 22, 2024 to February 21, 2024.  Contact Diaz Trade Law for assistance writing and submitting an exclusion comment and/or for assistance understanding the next steps in the implementation of Section 301.

In December 2022, the agency determined to extend the exclusions and extended them again in May 2023 through September 30, 2023. This latest notice announces the agency’s determination to further extend the exclusions until December 31, 2023.

The announcement states that the goal of this most recent extension is “[t]o provide a transition period for the expiring exclusions and to allow for further consideration under the four-year review.” 

Exclusion Background

In August 2017, USTR initiated an investigation into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The agency released a report of its findings in March 2018 and in June 2018 began imposing additional duties on products of China in four tranches. The USTR established a process by which U.S. stakeholders could request the exclusion of particular products subject to additional duties. Starting in November 2019, the agency invited public comments on whether to extend particular expulsions it had granted. Through this process, 352 exclusions have been extended. 

COVID Exclusions

In March 2020, USTR requested public comments on proposed modifications to exclude from additional duties certain medical-care products related to the U.S. response to COVID. USTR granted exclusions for 99 products. Throughout 2021 and 2022, USTR sought and evaluated public comments and extended 77 of the COVID-related exclusions through September 30, 2023.

Statutory Four-Year Review

Under the Trade Act of 1974, the USTR is required to conduct a four-year review if they receive an appropriate request to continue an action taken under Section 301. The agency is required to review:

• (A) the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of section 301 of (i) such action, and (ii) other actions that could be taken (including actions against other products or services), and 
• (B) the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.

In accordance with this requirement, USTR announced in May 2022 that it was commencing this review. The review is ongoing and there is no statutory deadline. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has stated that she does not expect any revisions to the Section 301 duties until the four-year review is complete.

What Importers Should Do

Importers should continue to follow this review and prepare for revisions to the Section 301 duties at the beginning of next year. For importers being hit by additional duties it is crucial to know when the additional duties are effective and must be paid. We urge importers to clearly understand which duties their products are subject to and develop a business plan on how to prepare for additional import costs.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor these developments. For help in preparing for upcoming 301 changes, get in touch with us today.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

• President Biden signed H.R. 8982, the Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act on October 10, 2022. Duty-free treatment will only be provided to importers of base powder to be manufactured into infant formula authorized to be marketed in the United States or subject to an enforcement discretion letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The effective date is October 13, 2022, the third day after signature.
  • Should you have questions regarding enforcement discretion, please refer to the Enforcement Discretion to Manufacturers to Increase Infant Formula Supplies FDA website.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative

• The Office of the United States Trade Representative announced the next steps in the statutory four-year review of the tariff actions in the Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation following requests for continuation from representatives of domestic industries
  • USTR is seeking public comments, consistent with the statutory directive, to consider the effectiveness of the actions in achieving the objectives of the investigation, other actions that could be taken, and the effects of the actions on the United States economy, including consumers.

United States Department of Commerce (DOC)

• Department of Commerce (DOC) announced on October 3, 2022, an opportunity to request administrative review and join annual inquiry service list for products on AD/CVD lists.  
• DOC is issuing a final rule to implement Proclamation 10414, “Declaration of Emergency and Authorization for Temporary Extensions of Time and Duty- Free Importation of Solar Cells and Modules from Southeast Asia.” 
• DOC is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in response to Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
• DOC and the International Trade Commission (USITC) announced a petition filed on Oct. 12 which alleges paper file folders from China, India, and Vietnam are being sold at less than fair value in the U.S. market, and in India benefiting from countervailable subsidies. The alleged average dumping margins are 116.69 percent for China, 174.19 percent for India, and 214.53 percent for Vietnam.
• DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced on October 12, that revocation of the antidumping duty  order on certain artist canvas from China would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the U.S. 
• DOC determined on October 12, that POSCO and its affiliated companies, made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021.
  • DOC intends to disclose the
    calculations for these final results of
    review within five days of the date of
    publication of this notice in the Federal
    Register.
• DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced on October 12, that revocation of the AD/CVD orders on certain biaxial integral geogrid products from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the U.S.
• DOC determines that certain steel nails from the United Arab Emirates were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021.
  • DOC plans to adopt the Preliminary Results as the
    final results of their review.
• DOC continues to determine that the 30 companies subject to this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on  magnesia carbon bricks from China are part of the China-wide entity because they did not demonstrate eligibility for separate rates.
  • The period of review is September 1, 2020, through August 31, 2021.

U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

• U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned three individuals on October 6, 2022, and one entity connected to Burma’s military regime pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14014. Following the February 1, 2021, coup that overthrew Burma’s democratically elected civilian government, the military has committed numerous atrocities against people in Burma, including the violent repression of political dissent, the killing of over 2,300 innocent civilians, and displacement of more than 900,000 people. 
• OFAC on October 6, 2022, designated seven senior leaders within Iran’s government and security apparatus for the shutdown of Iran’s Internet access and the continued violence against peaceful protesters in the wake of the tragic death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who was arrested for allegedly wearing a hijab improperly, and died in the custody of Iran’s Morality Police. 
• OFAC on September 30, 2022, placed hundreds of Russian individuals and entities on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories.  
• OFAC on September 29, 2022, sanctioned an international network of companies involved in the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian petrochemicals and petroleum products to end users in South and East Asia. 
• OFAC on October 7,2022, designated Malaysian national Teo Boon Ching, the Teo Boon Ching Wildlife Trafficking Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO), and the Malaysian company Sunrise Greenland Sdn. Bhd. for the cruel trafficking of endangered and threatened wildlife and the products of brutal poaching. 
• OFAC on October 7, 2022, designated two individuals and three entities for activities related to the exportation of petroleum to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which directly supports the development of DPRK weapons programs and its military. 
• OFAC and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced settlements for over $24 million and $29 million, respectively, with Bittrex, Inc. (Bittrex), a virtual currency exchange based in Bellevue, Washington. 
• OFAC is publishing one general license (GL) issued pursuant to the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations: GL D-2, which was previously made available on OFAC’s website.
• OFAC is publishing one sectoral determination issued pursuant to an April 15, 2021 Executive order, as well as a category of services determination issued pursuant to an April 6, 2022 Executive order.
• OFAC is publishing one general license (GL) issued pursuant to the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations: GL 13B, which was previously issued on OFAC’s website.
• OFAC is publishing nine general licenses (GLs) issued in the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations program: GLs 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, and 3G, each of which was previously issued on OFAC’s website and is now expired, as well as GL 3H, which was also previously issued on OFAC’s website.
• OFAC is publishing eight general licenses (GLs) issued in the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations program: GLs 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, and 9F, each of which was previously issued on OFAC’s website and is now expired, as well as GL 9G, which was also previously issued on OFAC’s website.
• OFAC published the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC’s determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

United States International Trade Commission (USITC)

• United States International Trade Commission (USITC) hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-682 and 731-TA-1592-1593 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of certain freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and Mexico, provided for in subheadings 8607.30.10 and 7326.90.86 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. 

United States Department of Labor (DOL)

• Department of Labor (DOL) has updated its list of goods produced by child or forced labor on September 28, 2022, and is now comprised of 158 goods from 77 countries.  

The White House and Congress

• President Biden issued an executive order on September 15, 2022, elaborating upon existing statutory factors and include additional national security factors the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS or “Committee”) must consider in its review process of a covered transaction. 
• United States Senate on September 21, 2022, ratified the Kigali Amendment which will phase down global production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), super-polluting chemicals in technology markets.  
• President Biden on September 15, 2022, issued an executive order elaborating on statutory factors and additional national security factors the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States must consider in its review process of covered transactions.

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)

• The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement necessary controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items.
  • In addition, BIS is expanding controls on transactions involving items for supercomputer and semiconductor manufacturing end uses.
• BIS is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding 31 persons to the Unverified List (UVL). The 31 persons of China are added to the UVL on the basis that BIS was unable to verify their bona fides because an end-use check could not be completed satisfactorily for reasons outside the U.S. Government’s control.

British Broadcasting Channel (BBC)

• BBC reports that shares in major Asian computer chipmakers have fallen following the U.S. implementing a ban on American firms from selling certain chips.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Bulletin Weekly, Vol. 56, October 5, 2022, No. 39

• Extension and Amendment of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ethological Materials from Mali
  • This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect an extension and amendment of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological and ethnological material from the Republic of Mali (Mali) to fulfill the terms of the new agreement, titled ‘‘Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Mali.’’
  • The Designated List, which was last described in CBP Dec. 17–12, is amended in this document to reflect additional categories of archaeological material found throughout the entirety of Mali and additional categories of ethnological material associated with religious activities, ceremonies, or rites, and enforcement of import restrictions is being extended for an additional five years by this final rule
• Quarterly interest rates used in calculating interest on overdue accounts and refunds on Customs duties
  • This notice advises the public that the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties will increase from the previous quarter.
  • For the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2022, the interest rates for overpayments will be 5 percent for corporations and 6 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 6 percent for both corporations and non-corporations
• Proposed revocation of two ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the tariff classification of pan masala betel nut food product
  • In NY 830068 and DD H890859, CBP classified the pan masala betel nut food product in heading 2106, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 2106.90.6099, HTSUS Annotated (HTSUSA) (currently subheading 2106.90.99, HTSUS, under the 2022 HTSUS), which provides for “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: Other: Other.”
  • CBP has reviewed both NY 830068 and DD H890859 and has determined the ruling letters to be in error. It is now CBP’s position that pan masala betel nut food product is properly classified, in heading 2008, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 2008.19.9090, HTSUSA, which provides for “Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included: Other, including mixtures: Other, including mixtures: Other: Other.”
• New American Keg v. United States
  • Because the Department of Commerce failed to explain why it was appropriate to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian data and why doing so was superior to using a Brazilian labor wage rate and to identify the evidence in the administrative record that supported granting a company a separate rate, the case had to be remanded.
• Hyundai Steel Company v. United States
  • Because the Commerce Department reopened the record and necessary information was available, the court concluded that the Department’s decision to recalculate plaintiff’s dumping margin at 0.46% without applying facts available was supported by substantial evidence. Because the court sustained the Department’s decision to not use facts available in recalculating plaintiff’s dumping margin, consideration of the Department’s reiterated benefit determination in the remand results would have no practical significance and was mooted.
• United States v. Zhe “John” Liu
  • Zhe “John” Liu and GL Paper Distribution, LLC (collectively, “Liu”), has moved pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(f) to strike portions of the complaint presented by the United States (“Government”), arguing that paragraphs 5–10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and the majority of paragraph 3 of the complaint are “wholly unrelated to the underlying action and contain allegations that are potentially prejudicial.”
  • Motion to strike denied
• Eteros Technologies v. United States
  • Washington State’s repeal of certain prohibitions attending marijuana-related drug paraphernalia “authorized” plaintiff such that plaintiff’s importation of component parts of an agricultural machine, which was designed to separate the leaf from the flower of cannabis or other plant material, through the Port of Blaine, Washington was exempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.S. § 863(f)(1), from the federal prohibition on importing drug paraphernalia.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Bulletin Weekly, Vol. 56, October 12, 2022, No. 40

• Extension of import restrictions on archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials from Guatemala
  • This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect an extension of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials from Guatemala to fulfill the terms of the new agreement, titled ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories Of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Guatemala.’’
  • CBP Dec. 12–17, which contains the Designated List of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material from Guatemala to which the restrictions apply, is being extended for an additional five years by this final rule.
• Proposed modification of one ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the tariff classification of finished wood slats and wood bottom rails with UV coatings used for window blinds
  • In NY N041645, CBP classified various wood components used for the manufacture of window blinds, including two styles of finished wood valances and wood slats that were primed and painted and three styles of finished wood slats and wood bottom rails that were either stained or painted and coated with UV coatings, in heading 4409, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 4409.29.9000, HTSUSA (“Annotated”) , which provides for “[w]ood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed: Nonconiferous: Other: Other: Other.” CBP has reviewed NY N041645 and has determined the ruling letter to be partially in error.
  • It is now CBP’s position that the finished wood slats and wood bottom rails with UV coatings used for window blinds are properly classified, in heading 4421, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 4421.99.9880, HTSUSA, which provides for “[o]ther articles of wood: Other: Other: Other: Other…Other.”
• Proposed modification of one ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the tariff classification of woven upholstery fabrics
  • In NY N319028, CBP classified the woven upholstery fabrics (Style N1829 (Moriarty), Style D1818 (Glossary), and Style J1819 (Fringe)) in heading 5903, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 5903.90.25, HTSUS, which provides for “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other.” CBP has reviewed NY N319028 and has determined the ruling letter to be in error.
  • It is now CBP’s position that woven upholstery fabrics are properly classified, within either heading 5407, HTSUS, or heading 5515, HTSUS, dependent on the specific subject merchandise at-issue. Specifically it is CBP’s position that the first woven upholstery fabric (Style N1829 (Moriarty)) is properly classified within in subheading 5407.53.20, HTSUS, which provides for “Woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn, including woven fabrics obtained from materials of heading 5404: Other woven fabrics, including 85 percent or more by weight of textured polyester filaments: Of yarns of different colors: Other,” that the second woven upholstery fabric (Style D1818 (Glossary)) is classified within 5407.73.20, HTSUS, which provides for “Woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn, including woven fabrics obtained from materials of heading 5404: Other woven fabrics, containing 85 percent or more by weight of synthetic filaments: Of yarns of different colors: Other,” and that the third woven upholstery fabric (Style J1819 (Fringe)) is classified within subheading 5515.12.00, HTSUS, which provides for “Other woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibers: Of polyester stable fibers: Mixed mainly or solely with man-made filaments.”
• Proposed revocation of one ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the tariff classification of a woman’s top
  • In NY N324185, CBP classified a woman’s top in heading 6211, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 6211.42.10, HTSUS, which provides for “Track suits, ski-suits and swimwear; other garments: Other garments, women’s or girls’: Of cotton: Other.” CBP has reviewed NY N324185 and has determined the ruling letter to be in error.
  • It is now CBP’s position that the woman’s top is properly classified in heading 6206, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 6206.30.30, HTSUS, which provides for “Women’s or girls’ blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses: Of cotton: Other: Other.”
• Proposed revocation of one ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the tariff classification of metal storage lockers and cabinets for garage use
  • In NY N310710, CBP classified the metal storage lockers and cabinets in heading 9403, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 9403.20.0081, HTSUSA (Annotated), which provides for “Other furniture and parts thereof: Other metal furniture: Other: Counters, lockers, racks, display cases, shelves, partitions and similar fixtures: Other”. CBP has reviewed ruling letter to be in error.
  • It is now CBP’s position that the metal locker cabinets are properly classified, in heading 9403, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 9403.20.0050, HTSUSA, which provides for “Other furniture and parts thereof: Other metal furniture: Household: Other: Other
• Proposed revocation of one ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the tariff classification of cast-iron cylinder heads and block castings
  • In NY N312073, CBP classified cast-iron cylinder heads and block castings in heading 8409, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 8409.99.91, HTSUS, which provides for “Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the engines of heading 8407 or 8408: Other: Other: Other: For vehicles of subheading 8701.20, or heading 8702, 8703 or 8704.” CBP has reviewed NY N312073 and has determined the ruling letter to be in error.
  • It is now CBP’s position that cast-iron cylinder heads and block castings are properly classified in heading 8409, HTSUS, specifically in subheading 8409.99.10, HTSUS, which provides for “Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the engines of heading 8407 or 8408: Other: Other: Cast-iron parts, not advanced beyond cleaning, and machined only for the removal of fins, gates, sprues and risers or to permit location in finishing machinery.”
• Proposed revocation of one ruling letter, proposed modification of one ruling letter and proposed revocation of treatment relating to the country of origin of certain air purifiers
  • In NY N322681, CBP determined that the air purifiers, manufactured from parts of Chinese and Vietnamese-origin and further assembled in Vietnam into subassemblies and the finished air purifiers, were products of China. It is now CBP’s position that the country of origin of these air purifiers is Vietnam. In NY N322364, CBP determined that air purifiers, manufactured from parts of Chinese and Vietnamese-origin and further assembled in Vietnam into subassemblies and the finished air purifiers, were products of Vietnam in the first manufacturing scenario and products of China in the second manufacturing scenario.
  • It is now CBP’s position that the country of origin of the air purifiers in the second manufacturing scenario is Vietnam
• Xi’an Metals & Mineral Import & Export Co v. United States
  • There was no error in the U.S. Court of International Trade’s determination that the CONNUM-specific rule was not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of the APA; hence, the U.S. Department of Commerce was entitled to clarify the regulation regarding the data used in performing margin calculations in the third administrative review because it needed data that more accurately reflected the costs associated with the production and sale of the subject merchandise;
  • The Court correctly determined that Commerce’s application of facts otherwise available (FA) was supported by substantial evidence; in deciding to apply FA, Commerce reasonably determined that appellant’s repeated failure to submit its cost information on a CONNUM-specific basis meant that necessary information reasonably reflecting the costs of production was not available.
• Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States
  • A Turkish producer and exporter of steel concrete reinforcing bar was not entitled to a stay pending resolution of its separate action arising from the previous administrative review of the same countervailing duty order where no common legal issue was being reviewed by the appellate court, the administrative reviews were separate actions based on the specific factual records, and thus, the proposed stay did not meaningfully advance judicial economy;
  • In light of the court‘s overarching duty to timely resolve disputes, the interests of the litigants in resolving disputes quickly, as well as the general interest of the public in expeditiously resolving matters of great economic importance, the extensive stay of proceedings requested by the producer and exporter did not meet the pressing need required for such stays.
• HiSteel v. United States
  • Because the foreign producer of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes did not seek any relief separate from that sought by the producer challenging its individual weighted-average dumping margin, the foreign producer could piggyback on the challenging producer’s standing and did not need to establish independent constitutional standing;
  • Because the underlying litigation consisted of a civil action commenced under § 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, and because the foreign producer was an interested party who was a party to the proceedings, the foreign producer was to intervene as of right by operation of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2631(j)(1)(B) and Ct. Int’l Trade R. 24(a)(1).
• AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke et. Al. v. United States
  • This consolidated action involves a challenge to the final determination in the antidumping (“AD”) investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (“CTL plate”) from the Federal Republic of Germany
  • Since the issue, Commerce’s analysis, and the arguments of the parties are nearly identical to those presented in Dillinger France, the court concludes that a remand is equally appropriate here. Because Dillinger has failed to place information on the record demonstrating the actual cost of production of its non-prime products, Commerce may reasonably rely on facts otherwise available pursuant to § 1677e(a)(1); however, in making its selection of facts otherwise available, Commerce must explain how its reliance on information indicating the “likely selling price” of non-prime products accords with its obligation to ensure that the reported costs of production reasonably reflect the cost of producing the merchandise under consideration

If you have questions about these updates, contact our Diaz Trade Law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and What You Need to Know?

On June 16, 2022, CBP held a webinar on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). The UFLPA goes into effect June 21, 2022 so it is critical that importers are proactive about forced labor compliance in preparation for this implementation. During the webinar CBP discussed their recently published operational guidance for importers. This blog article provides an overview of CBP’s current enforcement environment and how UFLPA will change CBP’s enforcement procedures for imports generally, and specifically from the Xinjiang region. For general guidance on preventing the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how importers should audit their supply chain to ensure non-use of forced labor, please refer to our Bloomberg Law article, “U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor”.

Background

Under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307), CBP derives the authority for preventing the entry into the U.S. market of products made with forced labor by investigating and acting upon allegations of forced labor in supply chains. CBP issues Withhold Release Orders (WROs) and findings to prevent merchandise produced in whole or in part in a foreign country using forced labor from being imported into the United States. CBP defines Forced labor as all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer work or service voluntarily.

UFLPA

On December 23, 2021, President Biden signed into law H.R. 6256, as part of the United States’ commitment and deterrence efforts to secure U.S. supply chains from goods produced by forced labor. UFLPA (H.R. 6256) requires CBP to apply a rebuttable presumption that all imports of goods, wares, articles, and merchandise manufactured wholly or in part from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, or by entities identified by the U.S. government on the UFLPA Entity List, are presumed to be produced with forced labor and are prohibited from entry into the United States.

This presumption applies to all goods made in, or shipped through, other countries that include parts made in Xinjiang. However, this presumption is rebuttable. To rebut this presumption, the importer of record will need to provide to CBP clear and convincing evidence that the goods were NOT produced using forced labor.

UFLPA and WRO’s

UFLPA will supersede current WROs related to Xinjiang for goods imported on or after June 21, 2022. The UFLPA does not require CBP to issue Withhold Release Orders and findings pursuant to the regulations promulgated under Section 307 of the Tariff Act. For more information regarding WRO’s please review our blog post and see our Bloomberg Law article, U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor. Shipments being imported on or after June 21, 2022 that are subject to the UFLPA, which previously would have been subject to a XUAR WRO, will be processed under UFLPA procedures, and detained, excluded, or seized, as mentioned in CBP guidance published on June 13^th.

What does Clear and Convincing Evidence mean?

During the webinar CBP identified Customs Ruling H317249, specifically the “clear and convincing evidence” standard to prove that goods were not made with the use of forced labor. Under this standard, an importer would need to provide evidence that that the goods were NOT made with forced labor. In addition, importers must be aware and refer to importer guidance to be published by the Department of Homeland Security, as required by UFLPA Section 2(d)(6). Notwithstanding, on June 13,2022, CBP published a complementary guidance, prior to DHS’s publication, to assist importers in determining the type of documentation to present to CBP to rebut the presumption that the goods were made with forced labor.

Exception to the Rebuttable Presumption

An importer may request an exception from CBP. An exception would be a situation where an importer is saying that the goods contain goods made whole or in part in the Xinjiang, but there was no forced labor involved. In order to receive an exception an importer must fully comply with the guidance in Section 2D6 and CBP’s operational guidance for importers. Importers must also state that the importer is seeking an exception to the UFLPA presumption and provide appropriate documentation substantiating the request.

CBP Webinar on UFLPA

On June 16,2022, CBP hosted a webinar presented by Joane Colonnello, DHS-CBP Director and John Pickel DHS-Policy Expert. During the webinar, CBP Director explained the enforcement process and stated that any shipments that are subject to UFLPA will follow the typical detention under 19 U.S.C. 1499. Depending on the identified risk of the shipment, CBP will immediately detain, exclude, or seize shipments subject to the UFLPA rebuttable presumption. In addition, highlighted that under UFLPA the timeline to decide the protests is 30 days, if its not within 30 days, it is deemed denied and at that point the matter can be taken before the court of international trade. Lastly, CBP recommended importers to review prior published Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisories for guidance.

What Should You Do

DHS will be announcing the official importer guidance for UFLPA  on June 21. However, in the meantime, you may refer to the operational guidance published by CBP and also the suggestions made in Bloomberg Law article, U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor, and prior DTL blog post.  Additionally, in order to be able to demonstrate that you have used reasonable care with regards to forced labor, you must be able to answer these 12 questions.

At the bare minimum, we highly recommend you start by doing the following ASAP:

• Download the Sweat and Toil App
  • Use the DOL’s “Sweat & Toil” free app to assess your forced labor risk. You can review risk by product category and country.
• Have a Written Code of Conduct
  • Has the importer developed a written forced labor compliance plan for all of its foreign sourcing practices?
  • Have you included language on your purchase orders, contracts, and other shipping documents that emphasize compliance with forced labor?
• Start your Supply Chain profile
  • Do you have a complete understanding of your supply chain and where your goods are made?
• Internal Control Processes
  • Do you have internal controls to ensure that your procurement team no longer sources goods from Xinjiang Province?

Contact Us

Diaz Trade Law has significant experience in a broad range of import compliance matters including forced labor issues. For assistance with importer due diligence in relation to forced labor requirements; or for assistance in submitting documents to dispute the use of forced labor, contact our Customs and International trade law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

White House Trade News

• On May 27, 2022, the President issued  A Proclamation: Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States (Ukraine) | The White House, suspending Section 232 duties on imports of steel and derivative steel articles from Ukraine for one year, effective June 1, 2022.
• On June 1, 2022, Biden’s administration has embarked on an internal debate over whether to remove some tariffs on Chinese imports, fears of rising joblessness in China and the damage done to Germany’s trade competitiveness in light of the deadline for comment from those affected by the tariffs coming up in July.

CBP

• On April 25, 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined that there is substantial evidence that ZL Center, LLC (“ZL Center”), USGS, Inc. (“USGS”), JGS Import, Inc (“JGS”), and US Sunergy Corp. (“US Sunergy”) evaded antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders A-570-106 and C-570-107, respectively, on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof (“WCV”) from the People’s Republic of China by entering merchandise covered under those orders into the customs territory of the United States through evasion. Substantial evidence demonstrates that imports of Chinese-origin WCV were misrepresented with the country of origin as Malaysia. As a result, no cash deposits were applied to the merchandise at the time of entry.
• On June 1, 2022, The Department of Homeland Security, CBP submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and for CBP’s Trusted Traveler Programs including the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
• On June 1, 2022, The Department of Homeland Security, CBP submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval on CBP Form 1303, Ship’s Stores Declaration. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

USTR 

• On May 27, 2022, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) posted a Federal Register notice, adding an additional 6 months to the 81 COVID exclusions from China Section 301 Tariffs. This adds to the previous extension from November 16th, 2021, now ending on November 30, 2022.

FDA 

• On June, 2, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched a new education initiative titled Supplement Your Knowledge, to broaden public understanding of dietary supplements.

If you have questions about these updates, contact our Customs and International trade law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

Russia/Sanctions

• On March 21, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List pursuant to sections of the Magnitsky Act or pursuant to previous sanctions on public corruption in Belarus.
• On March 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designating key enablers of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This includes dozens of Russian defense companies, 328 members of the Russian State Duma, and the CEO of Sberbank, Russia’s largest financial institution.

USTR & Section 301 

• On March 22, 2022, the U.S. announced it has agreed to ease Trump-era tariffs on UK steel and aluminum shipments in exchange for the UK agreeing to suspend extra taxes it had put on US products such as bourbon and Levi’s jeans. Under the agreement, the US will replace the 25% tariffs on steel with a quota system. The policy will let UK metal imports into the country duty-free up to a certain level – the quota – before taxes kick in again. The deal will go into effect June 1, 2022.
• On March 23, 2022, the Office of the United States Trade Representative announced its determination to reinstate certain previously granted and extended product exclusions in the China Section 301 Investigation.  The determination reinstates 352 of the 549 eligible exclusions.  The reinstated product exclusions will apply as of October 12, 2021, and extend through December 31, 2022.
• On March 24, 2022, United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai and United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that the United States and Japan have reached an agreement to increase the beef safeguard trigger level under the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement. The new three-trigger safeguard mechanism will allow U.S. exporters to meet Japan’s growing demand for high-quality beef and reduce the probability that Japan will impose higher tariffs in the future.

If you have questions about these updates, contact our Customs and International trade law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) 

• BIS published a report summarizing the findings of a Department of Commerce investigation into the effect of imports of titanium sponge on the national security of the United States.
• BIS is seeking public comments concerning the imposition of export controls on certain Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) emerging technology, particularly with respect to its impact on U.S. national security
  • Comments due by December 10, 2021.
  • Contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com for help submitting your comment.
• BIS published this final rule to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to update the AG Common Control List for dual-use biological equipment.
  • This rule is effective October 5, 2021.

International Trade

• IMF slashes US growth forecast and warns of rising risks to the global economy amid supply chain disruptions and softening consumption.
• 136 countries agree to historic deal implementing a 15% minimum corporate tax rate.

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 

• OFAC sanctions Libyan national Osama Al Kuni Ibrahim, who is responsible for serious human rights abuse against migrants in Libya.
• OFAC publishes six Ukraine-related web general licenses (GLs) in the Federal Register: GL 16, GL 16A, GL 16B, GL 16C, and GL 16D, and GL 16E.

U.S. Government 

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is seeking comments on launch of a Global Business Identifier (GBI) Evaluative Proof of Concept (EPoC) aimed at determining a single identifier solution that will uniquely discern main legal entity and ownership; specific business and global locations; and supply chain roles and functions.
  • Comments due by December 6, 2021
  • Contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com for help submitting your comment
• U.S. Department of Labor seeks trade community’s input on three reports issued by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs regarding child labor and forced labor in certain foreign countries.
  • Comments due by January 15, 2022.
  • Contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com for help submitting your comment.

United States Trade Representative (USTR)

• USTR files a request for a Section 332 investigation on the distributional effects of goods and services trade and trade policy to build upon the Biden Administration’s goals of a worker-centric trade policy that is inclusive for all Americans.
• USTR closes investigations into Vietnam‘s acts, policies and practices related to illegal logging and timber trade.
• USTR opened a web portal for importers and other interested parties to comment on whether the USTR should renew certain China tariff exclusions that had previously expired.
  • If you would like assistance submitting a comment about exclusions for your product, reach out to us today.
• USTR Katherine Tai speaks on reimplementation of a targeted tariff exclusion process in speech outlining the Biden-Harris Administration’s new approach to the U.S.-China bilateral trade relationship.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

The revision, which added additional items to the list of European products subject to import duties, is the most recent increase of tension between the United States and the European Union (EU), in regards to their WTO dispute over Boeing and Airbus.

Background

The US and EU have been disputing the other illicitly subsidizes their airplane manufacturers since as early as 2006. In 2006, the US filed a case with the WTO that accused EU member states of providing Airbus with roughly $22 billion in illegal subsidies. Over the next 14 years, both members have brought various suits against the other via the WTO, in order to settle this international trade dispute.

Recent Timeline

Recent Developments

The decision to include additional products to the list of 301 tariffs is in direct response to the EU’s actions in November 2020. In November 2020, the EU imposed tariffs with an annual trade value of $4 billion against products from the U.S. Specifically, the EU levied additional import duties of 15 percent on large civil aircraft and of 25 percent on other U.S. goods. The action followed  a decision by the WTO arbitrator in the United States— Measure Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (DS353), and a corresponding WTO authorization to suspend WTO concessions to the U.S

According to USTR, while the EU claims its retaliatory action mirrors the action taken by the United States in this investigation: that is not accurate. USTR explains that the benchmark reference period used by the EU was impacted by the economic fallout from COVID-19, whereas the U.S. had used trade data from an unaffected period. The EU’s skewed methodology allowed it to cover a greater volume of imports in its action.  Further, ” up to and until the exit of the United Kingdom from EU customs territory is finalized, goods of the United States are subject to additional EU duties when entering the United Kingdom. However, the EU’s trade action valuation does not account for U.S. exports to the United Kingdom. Therefore, the value of U.S. exports subject to tariffs is greater than the trade value the EU ascribes to the various covered tariff lines.”

Despite the U.S. informing the EU of these claims and providing it with an opportunity to respond, the EU has declined to do so. Following the EU’s lack of response, USTR announced the January 6^th Revision of Action. In order to establish an equitable playing field, the U.S. has decided to mirror the EU approach to exercising its DSB authorization by adjusting the reference period for the action to be from August 2019 to July 2020, the same reference period used by the EU and stated:

In adopting this approach, the United States has made appropriate adjustments to ensure that the trade data from the revised reference period does not reflect reductions in trade resulting from the October 2019 trade action in the investigation. Using the estimated trade values from this reference period, the value of the U.S. trade action as last revised on August 12, 2020, is well below the $7.5 billion level authorized by the DSB. In order to exercise the DSB authorization to the United States, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to add products to the list of products currently subject to additional duties, while otherwise maintaining the trade action as last revised on August 12, 2020.

Specifically, as detailed in the annexes of the Notice, the revision adds products of France and Germany to the list of EU products subject to additional duties. USTR reviewed the proposed lists in the April 12, 2019 notice (84 FR 15028) and chose products from France and Germany, “as these countries have provided the greatest level of WTO inconsistent large civil aircraft subsidies”.

Additionally, USTR explicitly states that it will continue to consider the action taken by the investigation. Effectively, if the dispute changes in nature, the scope of this action may either increase or decrease. Diaz Trade Law will continue to provide the public with updates to this matter if and when USTR announces its future actions.

**SECTION BELOW IS DIRECTLY FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE** 

Annex I to this notice identifies the products affected by the revised action, the rate of duty to be assessed, and the current or former EU member States affected. Annex II, section 1, contains the unofficial descriptive list of the revisions made by this Notice. Annex II, section 2, contains an unofficial, consolidated description of the action, reflecting the changes in Annex I.

In order to implement this determination, effective January 12, 2021, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by Annex I to this notice. The additional duties provided for in the HTSUS subheadings established by annex I apply in addition to all other applicable duties, fees, exactions and charges.

Any product listed in annex I to this notice, except any product that is eligible for admission under ‘domestic status’ as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, which is subject to the additional duty imposed by this determination, and is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on January 12, 2021, only may be admitted as ‘privileged foreign status’ as defined in 19 CFR 146.41. Such products will be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty or quantitative limitations related to the classification under the applicable HTSUS subheading.

ANNEX I

A. “Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on January 12, 2021, U.S. note 21 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified as provided herein:

1. U.S. note 21(a) to such subchapter is modified by deleting “9903.89.55” each place that it appears and inserting “9903.89.63” in lieu thereof.
2. U.S. note 21 to such subchapter is modified by inserting in alphabetical order: “(s) Subheading 9903.89.57 and superior text thereto shall apply to all of the following products of France and Germany:
   • Spirits obtained by distilling grape wine or grape marc (grape brandy), other than Pisco and Singani, in containers each holding not over 4 liters, valued over $38 per proof liter (provided for in subheading 2208.20.40); and
   • Products classified in the following 8-digit subheadings:

(t) For purposes of subheading 9903.89.61:

1. “Fuselages and fuselage sections” means: (a) the complete, tube-like structure comprising the central body portion of an airplane, including accommodations for crew, passengers, and/or cargo, whether or not containing systems, insulation, or other articles; and (b) sections of articles described in (a) that have exterior side surfaces attached to exterior top/crown and bottom/keel surfaces, whether or not designed to be pressurized, and whether or not there are additional articles attached. The term “fuselages and fuselage sections” shall not cover airplane parts, components, or subassemblies (e.g. aft pressure bulkheads, floor panels, seats) when imported unattached to the articles described in (a) and (b) of this subdivision.
2. “Wings and wing assemblies (other than wings having exterior surfaces of carbon composite material)” means: (a) left or right-handed outboard wing structures with fixed structures, whether or not also including moveable structures, having exterior surfaces of other than carbon composite material; (b) center wing boxes having exterior surfaces of other than carbon composite material; and (c) wing assemblies that combine an outboard wing structure with a fixed structure (whether or not having moveable structure) and a center wing boxes, having exterior surfaces of other than carbon composite material. The term “wings and wing assemblies (other than wings that have exterior surfaces of carbon composite material)” shall not cover airplane parts, components or subassemblies when imported unattached to the articles described in (a), (b), or (c) of this subdivision.
3. “Horizontal and vertical stabilizers” means a horizontal or vertical stabilizer, whether or not attached to elevators or fuselage/tail cone/empennages structures. The term “horizontal and vertical stabilizers” does not cover elevators or rudders when imported unattached to a fuselage, tail cone, or empennage structure.

Such subheading shall not cover other parts of airplanes or helicopter not covered by the definitions set forth in this subdivision.”.

B. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on January 12, 2021, the following new tariff provisions are inserted in numerical sequence in subchapter III of chapter 99, with the material in the following new tariff provisions inserted in the columns entitled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, and “rates of Duty 1- General”, respectively:

ANNEX II

Section 1 – Descriptive List of Changes from Annex II

Note: The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the action, except as specified below. In all cases, the formal language in Annex 1 governs the tariff treatment of products covered by the action. Section 1 of this Annex describes the changes to the action that were undertaken as a result of Annex 1, as reflected in the informal list presented in Section 2 of this Annex.

Any questions regarding the scope of particular HTS subheadings should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.

The following changes are made effective January 12, 2021.

a) The following products of France and Germany have been added to the action, and included in Part 18, which has been inserted in the descriptive list in Section

**Only a portion of HS8 digit is to be covered

b) The following Products of France and Germany have been added to the action, and included in Part 19, which has been inserted in the descriptive list in Section

**Only a portion of HS8 digit is to be covered

Section 2- Descriptive List of Action, reflecting changes as described in Annex 1

Note: The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the action, except as specified below. In all cases, the formal language in Annex 1 and the notices published at 84 FR 54245 (October 9, 2019), 84 FR 55998 (October 18, 2019), 85 FR 10204 (February 21, 2020), 85 FR 50866 (August 18, 2020), governs the tariff treatment of products covered by the action.

Any questions regarding the scope of particular HTS subheadings should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.

Part 1 – Products of France, Germany, Spain, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 15 percent ad valorem.

Note: For purposes of the 8-digit subheading of HTS listed below, the product description defines and limits the scope of the proposed action.

**Only a portion of the HS8 digit is to be covered

Part 2- Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 3 – Products of Germany, Spain, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 4 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 5 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 6 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 7 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 8 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 9 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 10 – Products of France, Germany, Spain, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 11 – Products of Germany described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 12 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 13 – Products of Germany or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 14 – Products of Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 15 – Products of the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Note: For purposes of 2208.30.30, the product description defines and limits the scope of the proposed action.

** Only a portion of HS8 digit is to be covered

Part 16 – Products of France or Germany described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 17 – Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Part 18 – Products of France or Germany described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:

Note: For purposes of 2208.20.40, the product description defines and limits the scope of the proposed action.

**Only a portion of HS8 digit is to be covered

 Part 19 – Products of France or Germany described below are subject to additional import duties of 15 percent ad valorem:

Note: For purposes of the 8-digit subheadings of HTS listed below, the product description defines and limits the scope of the proposed action.

**Only a portion of HS8 digit is to be covered