INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND TRADE POLICY ON BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPACTS TO BRAZIL
Aluisio de Lima-Campos
Renata Amaral
Barbara Medrado
Lucas Queiroz Pires
Marcia Pulcherio
ABSTRACT
This article provides a general look into U.S. trade policy under the Biden Administration, with more focused comments on its most important aspects. It follows an introductory overview with discussion of its multilateral approach as well as the potential risks of measures like the Buy American. The authors review the multilateral approach in light of the recent developments in U.S.-Europe trade negotiations and their impact on Brazil, including those related to environmental concerns. The recent trends on trade remedies are also discussed, namely AD/CVD and the U.S. tariff actions on the grounds of Section 232 and 301, including their challenges in U.S. courts. U.S.- China trade relationship is also examined, particularly regarding the effects of the trade war, its perspectives and impacts on Brazil. The
12 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
article concludes with a review on Biden’s supply chain, specifically concerning the trade impacts of COVID-19 vaccines.
Keywords: International Trade, Trade Policy, United States, Brazil, Europe, Biden Administration, Multilateralism, Environment, Trade Remedies, AD/CVD, Tariffs, Section 301, Section 232, Global Supply Chain, COVID-19 vaccines
RESUMO12345
Este artigo fornece uma visão geral da política comercial dos EUA sob a administração de Biden, com comentários mais focados nos seus aspectos mais importantes. Em seguimento a uma análise geral introdutória, discute-se sua abordagem multilateral, bem como os riscos potenciais de medidas como o Buy American. Os autores revisam a abordagem multilateral à luz dos recentes desenvolvimentos nas negociações comerciais entre os EUA e a União Europeia, seus
1 Professor Lima-Campos, who chairs the ABCI Institute, combines 10 years of experience in financial markets with over 35 years of practice in trade policy and business diplomacy. He has been a trade policy professor at American University since 2007. He is a highly rated former WTO trade policy instructor, with countless articles published on international trade topics and three books, the most recent a textbook, “Introduction to Trade Policy” (2018), by Routledge, co-authored with Juan Antonio Gaviria.
2 Renata is an Adjunct Professor at American University Washington College of Law. She holds a Ph.D. in international trade law from Maastricht University and the title of Doctor of Laws from UFSC. She is the Vice Chair of ABCI Institute, and the Founder of Women Inside Trade.
3 Barbara holds a B.S. degree in Industrial Engineering from the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, which nominated her as Salzburg Cutler Fellow in 2019. Barbara worked for the Foreign Trade Secretariat in Brazil for three years, conducting anti-dumping investigations and assisting dispute settlement cases at the WTO involving trade remedies. She has published regarding trade agreements and technical aspects of anti-dumping calculations.
4 Lucas is Special Legal Consultant at Alston & Bird, in Washington DC. He practiced in Brazil and interned at the Legal Affairs Division of the WTO. Lucas holds an LL.M. in International Economic and Business Law from Georgetown University (graduating with honors and distinction). He holds a Law degree from FGV School of Law of São Paulo and a Masters in Business Economics from FGV School of Economy of São Paulo.
5 Marcia Pulcherio is an attorney in Brazil, the United States and Europe. Her practice is focused on international trade law, policy and compliance. Marcia holds an LL.M in International Economic Law, Business & Policy from Stanford University, and a Law Degree from Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). She advises clients in trade negotiations, trade remedy and compliance matters, economic sanctions and export controls.
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 13
impactos para o Brasil, incluindo no tocante a questões ambientais. As tendências recentes em defesa comercial também são discutidas, especificamente AD/CVD e as tarifas dos EUA com base nas Seções 232 e 301, incluindo suas contestações nos Tribunais dos EUA. A relação comercial EUA-China também é examinada, sobretudo no que diz respeito aos efeitos da guerra comercial, suas perspectivas e impactos para o Brasil. O artigo conclui com uma revisão da cadeia de abastecimento durante a administração de Biden, inclusive com relação ao impacto das vacinas COVID-19 no comércio internacional.
Palavras-chave: Comércio Internacional, Política Comercial, Estados Unidos, Brasil, Europa, Administração Biden, Multilateralis mo, Meio Ambiente, Defesa Comercial, AD/CVD, Tarifas, Seção 301, Seção 232, Cadeia de Abastecimento Global, Vacinas COVID-19
- OVERVIEW OF U.S. TRADE POLICY UNDER BIDEN
Environment and labor have become the main focus of United States (“U.S.”) trade policy under the U.S. President Joseph Biden administration, as indicated during the presidential campaign and as later became clear with the choice of cabinet members. Soon after taking office, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement and signed an Executive Order (“EO”) tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad6. In April 2021, Biden welcomed 40 world leaders to a summit on climate 7. He also launched the US$2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan, designed to be “an investment in America that will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our country’s infrastructure, and position the United States to out-compete China.” 8 Part of it, close to US$1 trillion, is earmarked for transportation and manufacturing, which should also benefit agriculture. Initiatives to make it easier for workers to join unions
6 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/
7 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/23/leaders-summit-on-climate summary-of-proceedings/
8 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american jobs-plan/
14 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
are also in the works9. Labor’s influence in policy is expected to rise significantly. As stated in the 2021 Trade Policy Agenda, “a worker centered trade policy requires extensive engagement with unions and other worker advocates. Under the Biden Administration, workers will have a seat at the table in the development of trade policies.” 10
This does not imply that labor and environment are the only concerns: relationships with China, trade partners, and international organizations are also in question. In most trade issues, the Biden administration’s approach is more diplomatic, less confrontational, but not dramatically different in substance from Trump’s. In the case of China, pressure to force the Chinese government to alter its unfair trade practices is being applied diplomatically by bringing allies into the fold. But, at the same time, none of the trade barriers imposed by the Trump Administration on Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) have been revoked. The same goes for Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (“Section 232”) restrictive measures on aluminum and steel, which still stand and affect important U.S. trade partners, such as the European Union (“EU”), United Kingdom (“UK”), Japan, South Korea, Brazil, among others. The U.S. has announced a more constructive approach at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) and followed it by breaking the deadlock in the election of its new Director General (“DG”). However, no further action, concrete or otherwise, has been taken regarding WTO reform or dispute settlement. It remains to be seen what the new head of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) Katherine Tai11, who has thus far enjoyed only a short period in office (since March 18), might accomplish in the wake of the urgent COVID-19 related discussions, which are taking priority.
Trade policy formulation under the Biden Administration is quite different from Trump’s top-down system, wherein , for the most
9 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/business/economy/president-biden-will-promote-unions through-a-white-house-task-force.html
10 USTR 2021 Trade Policy Agenda, p.15, available at https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/ reports/2021/2021%20Trade%20Agenda/Online%20PDF%202021%20Trade%20Policy%20 Agenda%20and%202020%20Annual%20Report.pdf
11 Education: Yale University (BA) and Harvard University (JD); Languages: Fluent in Mandarin.
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 15
part, the White House made decisions without much inter-agency consultation and sent down through the administrative tiers for eventual implementation. Decisions were fast, but implementation, to some extent, chaotic.12 Biden is adopting something similar to Obama’s bottom-up system, wherein the different echelons of government interact in the preparation and delivery of a proposal to the White House. It is a slower decision-making process, but one that usually provides transparency, predictability, and clarity in the implementation guidelines.
To put labor and environment at the forefront of his trade policy, Biden chose Tai, former Chief Trade Counsel of the House Committee on Ways and Means, to head the Office of the USTR. She gained notoriety for advocating in favor of stronger labor and environmental provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (“USMCA”). As she expressed in her first public address on trade policy, “[c]omprehensive action [on environment] is the only way forward, and this challenge must be at the center of U.S. foreign policy, national security, and economic policy. USTR sits at the intersection of all three areas, and I am honored to lead this agency and the dedicated public servants who will answer the call. During my confirmation hearing, I made clear that protecting our planet would be a top priority.”13 As Tai acknowledges, the intersection of three other areas in trade policy, namely that between the USTR and its pairs at the Department of State, National Security Council, Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), is key for her success. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan belong to Biden’s inner circle, having served under him in the Obama Administration. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the first woman to occupy that position, also served in the Obama Administration, as chair of the Federal Reserve. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, former Governor of Rhode Island, is politically skilled and well
12 Examples can be found in the implementation of Section 232 import restrictions and exclusions, tariffs on Chinese imports and following counter retaliations, among others.
13 https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2021/april/remarks-ambassador katherine-tai-trade-policy-environment-and-climate-change
16 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
connected in the Democratic Party and holds degrees in law and economics. Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry, who was Secretary of State under Obama and one of the leading architects of the Paris Agreement, has a long history with Biden, both having served in the Senate and its Foreign Relations Committee. Going for her, Tai has the most experience in trade law and policy, having worked at USTR in the Obama administration where she became Chief Counsel for China Trade Enforcement, overseeing China cases at the WTO, and, more recently, as Chief Trade Counsel, where she advised lawmakers in Congress on trade related matters. She was approved by the Senate with a vote of 98-0, showing a rare bipartisan agreement in a deeply divided Washington.
1.1. Multilateral Trade Policy under Biden
The U.S. approach to multilateral institutions and agreements has already changed under Biden. But the longstanding bipartisan concerns over the WTO persist, and the need for reform remains central.
The support14 that the new administration gave to the candidacy of Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was an easy win for Biden’s team in the multilateral trading system. It may indicate that the U.S. will engage in fewer unilateral trade actions. The new team is also signaling that it may engage more actively with allies, specifically in China-related matters.
Biden has been vocal about the respect his administration has for trade agreements – as he stated in his first address to Congress15 – but until the present moment, Biden has not lifted any of the unilateral trade sanctions applied by his predecessor.
Republicans and Democrats share concerns about the WTO, and they go beyond criticism targeting the Appellate Body (“AB”). In fact, the crisis that culminated with the blockage of the AB was initiated
14 https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2021/february/office-united states-trade-representative-statement-director-general-world-trade-organization
15 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/28/remarks-as-prepared for-delivery-by-president-biden-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 17
during the Obama administration that, in 2016, first obstructed the reappointment of AB members. Trump doubled down on what Obama had started, reaffirming that the AB was inefficient and incapable of observing deadlines, that it has strayed beyond acceptable limits, and that it often incorrectly adjudicated trade remedies cases.
But the U.S. dissatisfaction towards the WTO spans all three major functions of the organization: negotiations, monitoring, and dispute settlement. There is a shared and broad concern over transparency rules regarding the monitoring functions and the perceived lack of commitment that many members show towards them.
With respect to the negotiation branch of the WTO, both U.S. parties have expressed concerns about abuse of developing country status by some members, as well as the system’s inability to update rules. More specifically, members of the Democratic party have addressed the Organization’s inability to address priorities, such as labor and environment.
The majority of WTO members uncontestably claim for the need of a reform at the Organization. The new DG has recognized that WTO needs changes to reinvigorate. But philosophical differences between big players, like the U.S. and the EU, remain and have significantly undermined any chance of progress so far. The reform is key to have a comprehensive set of enforceable rules on China’s non-market practices.
That being said, the WTO’s issues – and its need for reform – are not a priority to the Biden Administration. Thus, it may take some time for real action to happen in that arena. The good news is that the new U.S. administration seems to be inclined to follow the multilateral trading system rules in its trade actions for the next term.
1.2. Buy American’s risks
In spite of the Biden’s cooperative rhetoric, the Buy American gives pause to anyone paying attention to his economic plan. In the first weeks of his administration, the new U.S. president signed the
18 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
Made in America EO, 16 which addresses national preferences related to federal purchases, federal subsidies, and other forms of federal assistance.
The Made in America agenda refers to and is based on the Buy American Act, from 1933. It aims to force the federal government to buy more U.S. goods and addresses one of Biden’s most important campaign promises: to bolster the national manufacturing sector.
The Buy American is not new. It is provided for in title 41 of the United States Code § 10 et seq. and refers to the legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress at the time of the Great Depression. In essence, it established a general preference for the purchase of materials manufactured in the country when the materials are being procured by the U.S. government, for public use in the country.
The novelty lies within the two EOs, one signed by Trump in August 2020 and another by Biden in January 2021. Trump’s EO instructed (i) the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to develop a list of products critical in public health emergencies, and (ii) the USTR to withdraw the right of companies based in countries participating in the Government Procurement Agreement (“GPA”) of the WTO and in Free Trade Agreements (“FTA”) to bid on government procurement to sell products under the same conditions as products made “in America.”
The Biden EO did not terminate the previous one signed by Trump and is broader – as it deals essentially with all products sold to U.S. government agencies. The difference is that the new administration seems to be willing to implement everything in accordance with U.S. commitments under WTO rules.
During its announcement of the Made in America EO, Biden acknowledged that efforts to promote national content have been a familiar part of previous U.S. Presidents’ agendas. While not a novelty in itself, the Biden EO confirms the shift in consensus in American trade policy to direct government intervention to promote
16 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/25/executive-order-on ensuring-the-future-is-made-in-all-of-america-by-all-of-americas-workers/
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 19 U.S. manufacturers.
- RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN U.S.-EUROPE RELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BRAZIL
During the Trump-Pence Administration, U.S. preference for unilateral trade actions – to the detriment of multilateralism – upset the relationship with its traditional allies, such as the EU. In contrast, the Brazilian government attempted to strengthen its ties with the U.S. through the personal relationship between Trump and Bolsonaro. At the onset of the Biden-Harris Administration, as Brasilia drifted apart from the White House, Brussels seemed to perceive a renewed opportunity for cooperation.
Not long after the confirmation of the election results, the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy published a joint communication to the European Parliament, the European Council and the EU Council, offering a new EU-U.S. agenda for global change (EU-U.S. agenda). The text describes the election as an opportunity to reestablish severed ties across the Atlantic. The EU and the U.S. find renewed common ground in multilateralism, particularly in the debates to face climate change and WTO reform, while looking for ways to address common challenges such as the health crisis (see item 4 below), or tensions involving unilateral actions, such as Section 232 (see item 3.1) or digital taxes.
2.1. Reforming the multilateral trading system
U.S. dissatisfaction towards the multilateral trading system did not begin with the Trump Administration. When Biden was vice-president under Obama, the U.S. already stressed the WTO’s failure to address China’s alleged non-compliance with multilateral rules and the AB’s inadequate meddling in U.S. sovereignty by interpreting terms that had not been negotiated in the multilateral
20 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
trade agreements. Obama was the first to block the reappointment of the South Korean judge to the WTO’s AB in the early stages of the crisis that has effectively created a void in the organization’s appellate system since 2019. The EU has expressed its frustration with the U.S. position and has developed a parallel appellate mechanism, which relied on Brazilian support. The Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, similar to the usual WTO appellate system, is open to any interested members, while the AB is paralyzed.
The trade wars, escorted by unilateral actions and prompt retaliations, deeply affected the WTO credibility and the system stability, along with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic over international supply chains and trade in general (item 4 below). Biden’s first step to demonstrate the new-found commitment with the multilateral organization was to join the consensus and support the election of the WTO’s DG Okonjo-Iweala, after the Trump Administration’s resistance. The support to jump-start the Organization is still shy, though. Since Biden took office, he has maintained the block on new appointments to the AB, blaming it on the presidential transition.
To overcome the stalemate, the EU proposes in its EU-U.S. agenda that the U.S. and Japan join its efforts to lead the WTO reform and invites the U.S. to work together to solve bilateral trade irritants. Brazil is an active member of the organization, directly interested in an operative AB. President Bolsonaro has demonstrated his support to the reform before the G20, in line with Europe’s proposals. Brazil’s commitment to the rules-based trading system is also reflected in its recent decision to adhere to the GPA at the WTO and to comply with the best regulatory practices to be admitted into the OECD. The diverse platforms are an important opportunity for Brazil to reestablish international leadership and strengthen the multilateral approach to overcome economic challenges.
In its EU-U.S. agenda, Europe invited the U.S. to develop a regulatory framework for the new digital needs. While multilateral discussions about digital services taxes are ongoing at the OECD, some European countries have already moved forward with unilateral taxation. These taxes have a great impact on U.S. companies, prompting
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 21
the U.S. to initiate Section 301 investigations that threatened tariffs in retaliation against France, UK, and other partners. Brazil has also initiated discussions about the creation of a digital tax, possibly named the Social Contribution on Digital Services (“Contribuição Social sobre Serviços Digitais”), to be levied on digital services, which could similarly elicit U.S. retaliation. To face the challenges of the digital economy and to avoid international isolation, Brazilian authorities should engage in discussion in the OECD, WTO, and other multilateral arenas for discussions.
2.2. A collective approach to the environment
From his early days in office, President Biden returned the U.S. to the Paris Climate Agreement and shifted the government’s attention towards the environment, establishing new emission targets for 2030. By reaffirming the belief in global warming, the U.S. initiated a movement to take the lead and prompt its partners to review policies and practices to preserve the environment. Global warming requires a “collective approach” by its own nature, USTR Katherine Tai noted during her confirmation hearing. 17 By focusing on the collective approach, the U.S. took an important step demonstrate leadership in the multilateral agenda, which has been lacking in recent years.
The environment has traditionally been on the center stage of EU politics and has now become an important common ground to reestablish cooperation with Washington. The White House’s Leaders Summit on Climate in April was a hallmark of the cooperation in preparation for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (“COP 26”) in November 2021 in Glasgow, with the purpose of “galvaniz[ing] efforts by the major economies to tackle the climate crisis.” 18 In stark contrast with the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration committed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. It also published a
17 See “US Senate holds confirmation hearing to consider Katherine Tai as US Trade Representative”. Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c9ceDEJzJE
18 See “President Biden Invites 40 World Leaders to Leaders Summit on Climate”, White House. 26 March 2021. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/26/ president-biden-invites-40-world-leaders-to-leaders-summit-on-climate/
22 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
Climate Finance Plan with a strategic orientation for the future of U.S. climate finance to guide the work of government agencies. In turn, Europe reinforced its binding target of 55% emissions reduction by 2030, while defending the need for carbon pricing and for greater contributions from developed nations to climate finance.
Since the signature of the Paris Agreement, Europe has defended that countries take concrete steps to implement concrete climate policies. In its action plan, the European Green Deal, Europe outlines investments and financing tools available to ensure transition to a greener economy. The EU’s 2050 long-term strategy indicates that the Union aims to be carbon neutral – with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions – by 2050, in line with the EU’s commitment under the Paris Agreement. As part of the Deal, the Commission also proposed the first European Climate Law to enshrine the 2050 climate-neutrality target into law in March 2020. In April 2021, the proposal became the provisional agreement on the EU climate law, which will enter into force after it is formally approved by Parliament and Council.
Brazilian authorities understand that the climate change agenda has been gaining momentum in the multilateral arena with the new administration in the U.S. and the continued efforts from the EU. The U.S. has been discussing potential financial aid for Brazil to protect the Amazon region, and the environment has been cited as a central obstacle for the ratification of the EU-Mercosur deal signed in 2019. To demonstrate its commitment, during the Climate Summit, Brazil pledged to become climate neutral by 2050 and to eliminate illegal deforestation by 2030, while pointing out the importance of financial contributions from developed countries to help Brazil develop the bioeconomy in the Amazon – region Brazil emphasized the relevance of in a global carbon market. Europe generally supports this idea as a WTO-compatible carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is under discussion within the U.S. government.
Critics note that Brazil has yet to deliver concrete measures that benefit the environment before it can demand further contribution from developed countries. The negotiations for additional funds may benefit from a cooperative approach, particularly considering the
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 23
relevance that the EU gives to the use of an upcoming EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The EU expects this mechanism to avoid carbon leakage and create an opportunity to work together with the U.S. and other countries to set a global template for emissions trading, carbon pricing, and taxation. In line with this, Brazil may benefit from joining a wider transatlantic green trade agenda, which could also jointly develop a Trade and Climate initiative within WTO.
- TRADE REMEDIES
3.1. Trends in Antidumping (AD) and Countervailing Duties (CVD)
Under Trump’s directions, Commerce initiated 306 new AD and CVD investigations – a 278% increase from the comparable period in the previous administration.19 Still, commentators predict that the Biden Administration will likely bring a continued uptick in AD and CVD investigations,20 confirmed by the limited data currently available. Between January 21 and April 25, the Biden Administration initiated 12 new AD and CVD investigations.21
The main reason for that is that the Biden Administration is inclined to more traditional trade remedies, such as AD/CVD to protect the U.S. industry, rather than pursuing controversial, unilateral remedies, on which the Trump Administration relied, such as Section 232 or 301 tariffs.
There is a growing concern over the efficacy of U.S. trade
19 International Trade Administration Press Release, U.S. Department of Commerce Fins Dumping on Countervailable Subsidization of Vertical Shaft Engines from China (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://www.trade.gov/press-release/us-department-commerce-finds-dumping-and-countervailable subsidization-vertical-shaft.
20 Industry Week, What’s Ahead for US Trade Policy in 2021?, (Han. 25, 2021), available at https:// www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/article/21153223/whats-ahead-for-us-trade policy-in-2021
21 See Certain walk behind snow throwers from China (AD & CVD), Certain mobile access equipment and subassemblies from China (AD & CVD), Organic Soybean Meal from India (AD and CVD), Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India (AD & CVD), Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Russia (AD & CVD), Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China (AD & CVD).
24 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
remedies. Because of that, a surge in enforcement actions for evading or circumventing AD/CVD duties will naturally increase. Also, in an effort to strengthen U.S. trade remedy laws, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) introduced on April 16, 2021 the Eliminating Global Market Distortions to Protect American Jobs Act, a bipartisan legislation that seeks to establish the concept of “successive investigations” to respond to “repeat offenders and serial cheaters.”22
The proposed legislation seeks to block the “whack-a-mole” problem that occurs when trade remedy orders are imposed on imports from one country, and as a result the U.S. market is flooded with dumped or subsidized imports of that same product from a different country.
On the other hand, the future of CVD due to currency manipulation in the Biden Administration remains unclear. Yellen stated at her confirmation hearing for Treasury in January that she would work to fulfill Biden’s promise to “oppose any and all attempts by foreign countries to artificially manipulate currency values to gain an unfair advantage in trade.” 23 But the policy framework set in place to counter such manipulation has been weakened. On February 4, 2020, Commerce issued a final rule on imposing tariffs on imports from countries determined by the U.S. government to be undervaluing their currency relative to the U.S. dollar.24 The rules explain that, when making its consideration, Commerce “intend[s] to defer to Treasury’s expertise with respect to currency undervaluation,” noting that Treasury’s analysis is distinct from the analysis as to whether here
22 U.S. Senator Rob Portman Website, Press Release on Portman, Brown Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Trade Remedy Laws, Protect American Workers (Apr. 16, 2021), available at https://www. portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-brown-introduce-legislation-strengthen trade-remedy-laws-protect#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%93%20U.S.%20 Senators%20Rob,unfair%20trade%20practices%20and%20protect
23 James Politi and Colby Smith, “Janet Yellen vows to take hard line against currency manipulation,” Financial Times, January 19, 2021.
24 Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and Specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 85 Fed. Reg. 6031 (Feb. 4, 2020).
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 25
is undervaluation for purposes of a CVD proceeding.25
Yet, as Treasury released its first foreign exchange report of Biden’s administration, it did not designate China as a currency manipulator.26 China remained on the watch list over its currency practices instead.
In fact, the report provides that no U.S. trading partner met the relevant 1988 or 2015 legislative criteria for currency manipulation or enhanced analysis.27 This includes Vietnam, against which Commerce announced on November 4, 2020 that a preliminary determination finding that imports of passenger vehicles and light truck tires were subsidized due to alleged currency manipulation among other programs.28
By doing this, the Biden Administration might be distancing itself from tactics adopted during the Trump era, when Treasury was accused of politicizing the report after it abruptly designated China a manipulator in mid-2019 outside its usual release schedule, only to lift the label later to win concessions in a trade deal. Whether the Biden Administration will choose to pursue CVD against currency manipulation as promised or shy away from a practice that is not expressly provided for under multilateral agreements remains to be seen.
3.2. Section 232
In 2018, the U.S. determined that steel and aluminum imports posed a significant threat to the country’s national security and imposed tariffs under Section 232 on steel and aluminum of 25% and 10% respectively.29 On January 24, 2020, Trump issued a
25 Id. at 6038.
26 U.S Department of Treasury, Office of International Affairs, Report to Congress: Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States (Apr. 2021), at 4.
27 Id.
28 Countervailing Duty Investigation of Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from Vietnam: Preliminary Determination (Nov. 4, 202).
29 Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, 83 Fed. Reg. 11625.
26 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
proclamation under Section 232 expanding the scope of existing steel and aluminum tariffs to cover certain derivatives of aluminum and steel such as nails, wire, and staples, which went into effect on February 8, 2020. Some countries negotiated export quotas to avoid the tariffs, and others received temporary tariff exemptions, but as of June 1, 2018, the tariffs were being imposed against most U.S. trading partners.30
In addition to the retaliatory tariffs, from April to August 2018 nine governments requested consultations at the WTO, which is the first step in WTO litigation. From November 2018 to January 2019, the WTO established dispute settlement panels to hear the cases. Given delays due to COVID-19, the WTO recently announced it does not expect to rule in these cases, or in the cases the U.S. filed in response, until the latter half of 2021.
On Biden’s first week as President, the EU stated that it would gladly lift its retaliatory tariffs on US$3.4 billion in American exports if Biden removed the U.S. national security tariffs on European steel and aluminum. If the U.S. tariffs remain in place, however, the EU warned that it fully intends to amplify its retaliation.31
Commentators have been ambivalent trying to predict Biden’s actions towards the Section 232 tariffs. Biden’s appeal to working together with instead of punishing allies suggested that he would be open to withdrawing these measures. Biden’s forceful statements on the importance of domestic supply chain of certain products predicates he would likely prefer to retain the Section 232 measures.
It is now clear that the Biden administration approves these measures. Commerce Secretary Raimondo stated, “Let me say those tariffs have been effective. The data show that those tariffs have been
30 Argentina, Brazil, and South Korea agreed to quotas instead of tariffs; uniquely, Australia got a full exemption. Only in the case of Canada and Mexico have they been dropped. Hours before the inauguration of President Biden, former president Donald Trump replaced the Section 232 aluminium tariff on the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with a quota. A few days later, the Biden Administration reinstated the tariffs. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/01/a
proclamation-on-adjusting-imports-of-aluminum-into-the-united-states/
31 Bryce Baschuk, EU to End Tariffs on $3.4 Billion Goods If U.S. Lifts Metal Duty, Bloomberg (Jan. 27, 2021).
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 27
effective.” 32
In the longer term, Biden might have less authority to make changes to the Section 232 duties currently in place. Trump’s frequent use of Section 232 has Congress looking to rein in executive authority on trade. Draft legislation in both the House and Senate aims to limit the President’s use of these national security tariffs unless the Department of Defense or Congress signs off. One such effort is the Trade Security Act, which was reintroduced on March 15, 2021.
Even if these duties are withdrawn, imports of steel will continue to face barriers to enter the U.S. market. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. as of February 2021 had in place 555 AD/CVD orders on a widely variety of steel products imported from a total of 47 countries. By far the largest number (206) was imposed on Chinese steel products.33
Domestically, there have been court challenges against the tariffs imposed under Section 232 and against the constitutionality of Section 232 itself. We analyze these next.
3.2.1. U.S. Court challenges to 232 action
Most of the recent Section 232 actions above affecting U.S. imports of steel, aluminum, and their derivatives from virtually all countries, including Brazil, have been challenged in U.S. domestic courts. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has initial jurisdiction to review the President’s actions under Section 232. One can appeal a CIT decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). A CAFC decision is appealable to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), subject to the raising of a constitutional issue.
In April 2018, a U.S. subsidiary of a Russian steel producer
32 Eric Martin and Joe Deaux, Biden Commerce Chief Says Steel, Aluminum Tariffs Effective, Bloomberg (Mar. 4, 2021).] USTR Tai has indicated tariffs are a “legitimate tool.”[ USTR nominee Tai says tariffs are ‘legitimate tool’ for trade policy, Reuters (Feb. 25, 2021)
33 https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls&sa=D &source=editors&ust=1618288564293000&usg=AOvVaw3aAoW1-FNmLtuoXnBtCfFn
28 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
sought a preliminary injunction to prevent collection of 232 duties on certain steel products, on the grounds that the President acted beyond its delegated authority due to an alleged lack of connection between tariffs and national security.34 CIT denied the motion finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits and the parties dismissed the case on the following month.
In June 2018, a U.S. trade steel association challenged the constitutionality of Congress’ delegation of authority to the President under Section 232.35 CIT rejected the plaintiff’s argument holding that it was bound by a 1976 SCOTUS ruling establishing an “intelligible principle” in Section 232 when guiding presidential action. Plaintiff appealed, but the CAFC affirmed the CIT decision, reiterating that the case was bound by the SCOTUS precedent.36 The SCOTUS declined to hear the case in June 2020.37
The President’s increase of the Section 232 steel tariffs from 25% to 50% on U.S. imports from Turkey, however, had a different outcome. Specifically, CIT noted that the President’s power to impose duties under Section 232 is not unlimited, stressing that he must closely adhere to the procedural requirements provided by the statute.38 The duty increase was challenged under the Due Process Clause. In July 2020, the CIT ruled that the President violated Section 232 and the Equal Protection guarantees when increasing the 232 tariffs on steel imports from Turkey. This was the first CIT decision with findings against a 232 action on steel products.
The 232 exclusion process was another set of actions intensely challenged in courts. The Bureau of Industrial Services (“BIS”) of Commerce reviews exclusions requests for specific products from 232 tariffs, which are posted publicly and subject to objections,
34 See Severstal Export GmbH v. United States, No. 18-00057, 2018 WL 1705298, at *2 (CIT April 5, 2018)
35 Am. Inst. for Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1337 (CIT 2019), aff ’d, No. 2019- 1727, 2020 WL 967925 (CAFC February 28, 2020).
36 Id.
37 Am. Inst. for Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-1177, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3353, at *1 (SCOTUS June 22, 2020)
38 Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1276 (CIT 2019).
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 29
rebuttals, and surrebuttals from interested parties. Several plaintiffs challenged BIS’s exclusion denials on different grounds.39 They argued BIS decisions were generic and superficial. Others alleged improper influences in the process, such as undocumented, off-the
record, and ex parte communications. Plaintiffs also alleged the denials were unsupported by the record because objectors could not supply the merchandise at issue or supply at the quantities and timeline required.40 Many of these cases resulted in settlement with the U.S. government, entitling the parties to refunds of duties paid. Some of these claims are still pending.
In February 2021, the CIT rejected another challenge to Section 232 steel tariffs, concluding that they did not violate the Section 232 statute, entitling the U.S. government to judgment as a matter of law.41 The CIT held that the tariffs were legitimate as long as national security is threatened so that the President should set a “duration” for the tariffs.
In April 2021, however, the CIT ruled that the Trump administration improperly expanded its 232 steel and aluminum duties to derivative products in January 2020, marking a significant victory against the tariff action. CIT found that the President did not comply with the statutory deadlines by expanding the duties nearly two years after they were imposed.42
These cases illustrate that Section 232 actions are being challenged by different parties and are subject to intense scrutiny of U.S. Courts. Court precedents illustrate that they are bound by strict procedural rules, in a way that sudden changes or increases would likely be revoked in court. Moreover, the exclusion process has been subject to recent changes following these court challenges, such as
39 See e.g. JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. United States (CIT 19-00133), Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S. Inc. v. United States (CIT 20-00012), NLMK Indiana, LLC and NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States (CIT No. 20-00050), Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States (CIT No. 20-00040), Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Allegheny & Tsingshan Stainless, LLC v. United States (CIT 20-03923), Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. United States (CIT 21-00027)
40 Id.
41 Universal Steel Prods., Inc. v. United States, No. 19-00209 (CIT Dec. 3, 2019). 42 PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, No. 20-00032 (CIT April 5, 2021).
30 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
by BIS decisions being more thorough when reviewing the exclusion record more carefully. While the Biden administration has already signaled that the 232 duties would remain in place, their overall administrative process should become even more predictable and transparent to be consistent with these court rulings.
3.3. U.S.-China Trade Relations
3.3.1. Background on U.S-China Trade War and its effects
The trade war against China boosted in the Trump Administration coupled with the pandemic have significantly impacted the global supply chain and the international trade. Foreign direct investment from China into the U.S. has declined by 90% to US$4.7 billion in 2020 compared to 2016.43 Thus, U.S.-China trade and investment relations are a current and prominent issue for the Biden Administration.
As indicated above, the Biden Administration approach towards China is not dramatically different in substance from Trump’s. For instance, the trade barriers on Chinese imports continue, along with the pressure to make the Chinese government change its unfair trade practices. Emerging trends from the Trump’s Administration on the U.S. customs front are also continuing, such as restrictions on imports based on human rights violations like forced labor. Section 301, that tariffs against virtually all products from China, remain in place.
The U.S. tariffs against China and China’s retaliatory measures against the U.S. have severely affected U.S. imports from many countries. Beginning in July 2018, the Trump Administration imposed Section 301 actions in the form of additional duties on certain Chinese products. Specifically, when these products of Chinese origin are imported into the U.S., they are subject to additional import duties, varying from 7.5% to 25%, unless the products are covered
43 Analysis: Barriers to China-U.S. investments could outlast Trump, Reuters (November 3, 2020), available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-china-investments-analys/analysis barriers-to-china-u-s-investments-could-outlast-trump-idUSKBN27J0RL
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 31
by product-specific exclusions granted by the USTR. However, most of the exclusions granted expired by December 31, 2020. Only a few COVID-19 related items (e.g., masks, gloves, medical equipment) continued to enjoy exclusions through March 31, 2021.
Although the U.S. and China reached a Phase One trade deal in January 2020, the additional tariffs remained in place and the Biden administration has not removed them. In fact, the prospect of removing the existing Section 301 tariffs is low at this point. Many organizations, trade associations, and Congressmen have urged the Biden Administration to reopen the exclusion process. But the USTR Tai stressed that the 301 duties against China provide important leverage to the United States in trade negotiations,44 indicating they should remain in place. The status of the tariffs and exclusion process may change as the trade relationships between China and the U.S. evolve.
3.3.2. Section 301 Litigation
In late 2020, thousands of U.S. importers and trade organizations filed claims at the CIT against Section 301 tariffs on China, arguing that former President Trump was not within his rights to impose the duties.45 Importers sought duty refunds plus interest. The claims covered US$320 billion worth of goods from China.
According to the plaintiffs, the Trump Administration imposed the duties under so-called lists 3 and 4 “in an arbitrary and capricious manner because they did not provide a sufficient opportunity for comment, failed to meaningfully consider relevant factors when making their decisions, and failed to adequately explain their rationale.” 46 This action allegedly violated The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Plaintiffs also argued that the USTR tariffs on
44 “New Trade Representative Says U.S. Isn’t Ready to Lift China Tariffs”, Wall Street Journal (March 28, 2021), available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-trade-representative-says-u-s-isnt-ready-to lift-china-tariffs-11616929200
45 HMTX Industries LLC et al. v. United States (Court No. 20-00177) (CIT 2019) and over 3,000 complaints filed in September 2020 challenging the USTR authority to levy Section 301 tariffs on products of List 3 and 4A.
46 Id.
32 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
lists 3 and 4 were imposed more than a year after the initial Section 301 investigation was initiated, and the USTR did not tie these tariff actions to the original 301 determination.47
In response, the USTR argued they were “acting at the direction of the President in promulgating lists 3 and 4, and the President is not subject to the APA.” In February 2021, CIT asked the then Biden administration to provide generic responses to the thousands of claims. The master answer in March 2021 raised that the USTR’s implementation of those decisions presented a non-justiciable, political question. Even if CIT consider it a justifiable question, substantial deference is afforded, in a way that the CIT should not revoke the 301 action because “there was no clear misconstruction of a governing statute, significant procedural violation, or action outside delegated authority.”48 The USTR also argued that they had authority to expand the tariffs after the one-year expiration date because the previous actions taken in response to the Section 301 investigation proved to no longer be appropriate or effective.
As of May 2021, these cases remain pending. Due to the large number of complaints and procedural challenges to importers on how to secure refunds if their challenge is successful, it should take some time for a final CIT decision on these claims.
3.3.3. Evolution Perspectives and Impact to Brazil
President Biden has made clear that the U.S. would continue to stand up against China on allegedly unfair trade practices that undercut U.S. workers and industry, particularly with regard to the potential theft of U.S. technologies and intellectual property.49 With that regard, Biden’s fiscal year 2022 budget proposal called for a US$2.5 billion increase in funding to launch initiatives aimed at enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the development of emerging technologies such as semiconductors and 5G, and implement executive actions
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 “Biden hits China in Speech to Congress”, Washington Trade Daily Vol. 30, N. 84, (April 29, 201)
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 33
on export controls and telecommunications.50 We should therefore expect the U.S.-China trade relationship under Biden to continue to hinge on U.S. intellectual property and technology.
The 301 tariffs against China imposed by the Trump Administration and sustained by Biden’s have significantly affected the supply to the U.S. and China from many countries, including Brazil. For instance, following the U.S.-China trade war, Brazil’s exports to China grew 35% since 2017, especially with regard to agricultural goods,51 which compete with U.S. exports, now subject to retaliatory tariffs in China. This scenario should continue given that Section 301 tariffs should remain in place in the short term, besides its challenge in U.S. court.
- BIDEN’S SUPPLY CHAIN REVIEW
The recent “The Biden-Harris Administration and the Future of Supply Chains in America”52 report produced by Baker McKenzie, Atlantic Council and Experts of the Americas brings important insights on the broad-based supply chain resilience as pledged by President Biden and the role of the U.S. in advancing the development of greater commercial integration in the Western Hemisphere.
On its EO on America’s Supply Chains dated February 24, 202153 Biden demands critical review of the country’s supply chains and emphasizes in Section 1 that “[t]he U.S. needs resilient, diverse,
50 Biden budget: More Commerce funding for innovation, export controls, Inside U.S. Trade’s World Trade Online (April 9, 2021) https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/biden-budget-more-commerce funding-innovation-export-controls
51 See “Guerra comercial: o que significa, impactos e últimas notícias”, FIA ( April 6, 2020) at: “https:// fia.com.br/blog/guerra-comercial/ and “The US-China trade war has been a boon for Brazil’s soybean farmers. But can they keep up with Chinese demand?” South China Morning Post (May 17, 2019) at: https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3010480/us-china-trade-war-has-been-boon brazils-soybean-farmers-can
52 https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2020/12/the-biden-harris administration-and-the-future-of-supply-chains-in-the-americas.pdf?la=en
53 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/24/executive-order-on americas-supply-chains/
34 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
and secure supply chains to ensure our economic prosperity and national security.”
Overall, Biden demands in its EO a review of global supply chains that support key U.S. industries in an attempt to improve security for the U.S. government and U.S. companies. It seems an initial step focused on information gathering. Comprehensive reforms and supply chain strategies will likely follow once the White House has collected key information.
The EO basically outlines two types of assessments by government agencies: (1) an initial 100-Day Supply Chain Review focusing on key supply chain risks relating to semiconductors, batteries, strategic minerals, and pharmaceuticals; and (2) sectoral supply chain assessments in certain critical business sectors (e.g., national defense, public health, information and communication technology, energy, transportation, and agriculture), which will determine the extent to which these critical sectors are reliant on products from “competitor nations.”
The Biden Administration noted that this most recent February EO is intended to be a successor to the “Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers” EO54 that Biden signed on January 25, 2021. Both EOs indicate that supply chain security will likely be a primary focus for the new U.S. Administration.
4.1. U.S. Trade and Vaccines
The work done by the U.S. government in organizing and subsidizing a complex supply chain for manufacturing and distributing the COVID-19 vaccines has been impressive. The efforts on developing the vaccines and on its distribution began under Trump but has substantially expanded in the first months of Biden’s administration.
But the U.S. reality nowadays is enormously different from that of much of the world. Global demand for vaccine doses overwhelms
54 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/25/executive-order-on ensuring-the-future-is-made-in-all-of-america-by-all-of-americas-workers/
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 35
the available supply. A handful of countries are able to manufacture vaccines at the scale needed to overcome new infections and looming deaths—and shifting due to the emergence of viral variants.
In this context, it is problematic that the U.S. and other countries are hoarding doses and critical vaccine supplies for their own domestic populations, while failing to provide alternatives to the vaccine’s waiver asked by WTO members. Indeed, pressure from U.S. industry has increased for the past months for the U.S. government not to support the breach (or waiver) of intellectual property rights on the grounds that this would not have a positive impact on the increased capacity for vaccine production by industries around the world.
Also, experts have been defending that the U.S. should “devote resources and engage both domestic and international sources in coordinated, targeted investments to build on the existing global infrastructure of labs and manufacturers that produce specialized inputs for the vaccines” […]55. The vaccine manufacturing supply chain is already global, but it needs to be better organized and the U.S. can play a critical global role in this effort.
The United States has been widely criticized for focusing first on vaccinating Americans. But there is growing optimism that the U.S. has now secured sufficient doses to vaccinate every willing American adult. In fact, the most recent movement from the Biden Administration from May 2021 indicates that the USTR Tai will begin talks in the WTO on ways to overcome intellectual property issues that are keeping poorer countries from making their own generic version of COVID-19 vaccines. Tai announced that Biden administration would support waiving certain commitments under WTO’s TRIPS for COVID-19 vaccines and actively participate in negotiations.
55 https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/heres-how-get-billions-covid-19- vaccine-doses-world
36 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
- CONCLUSION
Changes in relation to the previous administration’s trade policies are evident, especially with the introduction of labor and environmental concerns as top priorities. Internally, as a result of the US$2.3 trillion infrastructure bill proposed to Congress and Biden’s expansion of the Buy American provisions, we should expect more protection and subsidies for the U.S. industry. Agriculture should also benefit from the infrastructure bill and receive further support, at least until its access to the Chinese market is recouped, if ever. Externally, tariffs, quantitative restraints, and trade remedies should continue to restrict imports in the short and medium terms, notwithstanding their challenges in the WTO and U.S. domestic courts. Global supply chain can shift while these tariffs remain in place, contributing to sourcing to U.S. and China from different countries, including Brazil. A more engaged and less acrimonious relationship with Europe is likely, while with China a more diplomatic and less confrontational attitude is on-going with most substance continued, however. At the WTO, the U.S. is adopting a constructive approach, but is not going forward with WTO reform and dispute settlement for now, or not until the COVID-19 pandemic is over.
REFERENCES
“Biden hits China in Speech to Congress”, Washington Trade Daily Vol. 30, N. 84, (April 29, 201)
“New Trade Representative Says U.S. Isn’t Ready to Lift China Tariffs”, Wall Street Journal (March 28, 2021) at: https://www. wsj.com/articles/new-trade-representative-says-u-s-isnt-ready-to lift-china-tariffs-11616929200
“President Biden Invites 40 World Leaders to Leaders Summit on Climate”, White House (26 March 2021). at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 37
releases/2021/03/26/president-biden-invites-40-world-leaders-to leaders-summit-on-climate/
“The US-China trade war has been a boon for Brazil’s soybean farmers. But can they keep up with Chinese demand?” South China Morning Post (May 17, 2019) at: https://www.scmp. com/business/companies/article/3010480/us-china-trade-war has-been-boon-brazils-soybean-farmers-can
“US Senate holds confirmation hearing to consider Katherine Tai as US Trade Representative”. Video at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=6c9ceDEJzJE
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Allegheny & Tsingshan Stainless, LLC v. United States (CIT 20-03923)
Am. Inst. for Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1337 (CIT 2019), aff’d, No. 2019-1727, 2020 WL 967925 (CAFC February 28, 2020).
Am. Inst. for Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-1177, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3353, (SCOTUS June 22, 2020)
Analysis: Barriers to China-U.S. investments could outlast Trump, Reuters (November 3, 2020), available at: https://www. reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-china-investments-analys/ analysis-barriers-to-china-u-s-investments-could-outlast-trump idUSKBN27J0RL
Biden budget: More Commerce funding for innovation, export controls, Inside U.S. Trade’s World Trade Online (April 9, 2021) https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/biden-budget-more commerce-funding-innovation-export-controls
Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S. Inc. v. United States (CIT 20- 00012)
38 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
Bryce Baschuk, EU to End Tariffs on $3.4 Billion Goods If U.S. Lifts Metal Duty, Bloomberg (Jan. 27, 2021).
Certain mobile access equipment and subassemblies from China (AD & CVD)
Certain walk behind snow throwers from China (AD & CVD)
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from Vietnam: Preliminary Determination (Nov. 4, 202).
Eric Martin and Joe Deaux, Biden Commerce Chief Says Steel, Aluminum Tariffs Effective, Bloomberg (Mar. 4, 2021).
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India (AD & CVD)
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Russia (AD & CVD)
Guerra comercial: o que significa, impactos e últimas notícias”, FIA ( April 6, 2020) at: https://fia.com.br/blog/guerra comercial/
HMTX Industries LLC et al. v. United States (Court No. 20- 00177) (CIT 2019)
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press releases/2021/april/remarks-ambassador-katherine-tai-trade policy-environment-and-climate-change
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press releases/2021/february/office-united-states-trade-representative statement-director-general-world-trade-organization
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 39
https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/ publications/2020/12/the-biden-harris-administration-and-the future-of-supply-chains-in-the-americas.pdf?la=en
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.usitc.gov/trade_ remedy/documents/orders.xls&sa=D&source=editors&ust=161 8288564293000&usg=AOvVaw3aAoW1-FNmLtuoXnBtCfFn
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/business/economy/ president-biden-will-promote-unions-through-a-white-house task-force.html
https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy watch/heres-how-get-billions-covid-19-vaccine-doses-world
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential actions/2021/01/25/executive-order-on-ensuring-the-future-is made-in-all-of-america-by-all-of-americas-workers/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential actions/2021/02/24/executive-order-on-americas-supply-chains/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential actions/2021/02/01/a-proclamation-on-adjusting-imports-of aluminum-into-the-united-states/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential actions/2021/01/25/executive-order-on-ensuring-the-future-is made-in-all-of-america-by-all-of-americas-workers/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate crisis-at-home-and-abroad/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements releases/2021/04/23/leaders-summit-on-climate-summary-of proceedings/
40 Revista de Direito do Comércio Internacional
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/
Industry Week, What’s Ahead for US Trade Policy in 2021?, (Han. 25, 2021), at: https://www.industryweek.com/the economy/public-policy/article/21153223/whats-ahead-for-us trade-policy-in-2021
International Trade Administration Press Release, U.S. Department of Commerce Fins Dumping on Countervailable Subsidization of Vertical Shaft Engines from China (Jan. 5, 2021), at https://www.trade.gov/press-release/us-department
commerce-finds-dumping-and-countervailable-subsidization vertical-shaft.
James Politi and Colby Smith, “Janet Yellen vows to take hard line against currency manipulation,” Financial Times, January 19, 2021.
JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. United States (CIT 19-00133) Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States (CIT No. 20-00040)
Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and Specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 85 Fed. Reg. 6031 (Feb. 4, 2020).
NLMK Indiana, LLC and NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States (CIT No. 20-00050)
Organic Soybean Meal from India (AD and CVD) Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China (AD & CVD).
PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, No. 20-00032 (CIT April 5, 2021).
A política comercial e perspectivas sob a administração Biden nos EUA 41
Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, 83 Fed. Reg. 11625.
Severstal Export GmbH v. United States, No. 18-00057, 2018 WL 1705298, at *2 (CIT April 5, 2018)
Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1276 (CIT 2019).
U.S Department of Treasury, Office of International Affairs, Report to Congress: Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States (Apr. 2021), at 4.
U.S. Senator Rob Portman Website, Press Release on Portman, Brown Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Trade Remedy Laws, Protect American Workers (Apr. 16, 2021), available at: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/
press-releases/portman-brown-introduce-legislation-strengthen trade-remedy-laws-protect#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20 D.C.%20%E2%80%93%20U.S.%20Senators%20Rob,unfair%- 20trade%20practices%20and%20protect
Universal Steel Prods., Inc. v. United States, No. 19-00209 (CIT Dec. 3, 2019).
USTR 2021 Trade Policy Agenda, p.15, at: https://ustr.gov/sites/ default/files/files/reports/2021/2021%20Trade%20Agenda/ Online%20PDF%202021%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda%20 and%202020%20Annual%20Report.pdf
USTR nominee Tai says tariffs are ‘legitimate tool’ for trade policy, Reuters (Feb. 25, 2021)
Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. United States (CIT 21-00027)