"These additional tariffs will increase the input costs and prices for technology products for consumers and businesses, increasing inflation in the United States," said Ken Montgomery, executive director of Technology Trade Regulation Alliance.
by Xinhua writer Xiong Maoling
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. government's decision to hike tariffs on Chinese-made products, including electric vehicle batteries, critical minerals, steel, and aluminum, has met with wide opposition and disappointment from U.S. economists, trade groups and international organizations.
According to the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, the tariff rate will go up to 100 percent on electric vehicles, 50 percent on solar cells and 25 percent on electrical vehicle batteries, critical minerals, steel, aluminum, face masks and ship-to-shore cranes. The new tariffs could take effect as early as Sept. 27.
Ken Montgomery, executive director of Technology Trade Regulation Alliance (TTRA), said the TTRA does not believe that the tariffs under Section 301 have been successful in addressing the trade issues between the United States and China, noting the organization "has long advocated addressing these issues in bilateral policy discussions."
"These additional tariffs will increase the input costs and prices for technology products for consumers and businesses, increasing inflation in the United States," Montgomery said. "In addition, U.S. businesses will be less competitive with foreign suppliers due to these added costs and increased prices."
Thomas Rosensweet, president at Newport Metals, LLC, said that the company's product, magnesium anodes, which is used to prevent corrosion in underground gas, oil and water pipes and propane tanks, is "only made in China because China produces more than 85 percent of the world's supply of magnesium."
"Because of the high quality of Chinese magnesium and the 100 percent U.S. anti-dumping duty on pure magnesium from China … the tariff amounts to a tax that is ultimately paid by the users" in the United States, he said.
The U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC), a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of more than 270 American companies that do business in China, on Friday expressed disappointment with the final decision.
"The Section 301 tariffs have not worked," USCBC President Craig Allen said in a statement, adding that such tariffs "make it harder for American companies to compete in the U.S. and abroad, cost American jobs, increase consumer prices, and invite Chinese retaliation."
Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Xinhua that the changes are small compared to the previously proposed measures. "Some tariffs are increased or imposed on products not previously covered. A few tariffs may be reduced or products exempted. But nothing big," he said.
Noting that the existing tariffs have already been reflected in U.S. consumer and business prices, Hufbauer said firms that were hoping for relief will give up. "Neither (Kamala) Harris nor Trump will (offer) much relief for the next four years," he said.
The Office of USTR's latest decision also goes against what multilateral organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been advocating.
In late June, the IMF said in a concluding statement following the completion of its 2024 Article IV Mission to the United States that "the ongoing intensification of trade restrictions and the increased use of preferences in the treatment of domestic versus foreign commercial interests represent a growing downside risk for both the U.S. and the global economy."
"Tariffs, nontariff barriers, and domestic content provisions are not the right solutions since they distort trade and investment flows and risk creating a slippery slope that undermines the multilateral trading system, fragments global supply chains, and spurs retaliatory actions by trading partners," IMF staff said in the statement.
"These policies are ultimately bad for U.S. growth, productivity, and labor market outcomes and the evidence suggests their costs are largely borne by U.S. consumers and firms," they added.■
留言 0