The China/Section 301 diversion is real. So far in 2021, GSP imports are up 12% for products where Chinese imports face Section 301 tariffs but down 7% for products where Chinese imports don’t face any new Section 301 tariffs. It is impossible to know how much more GSP imports might be up (or Chinese imports down) if GSP expiration hadn’t forced American companies to pay tariffs for those products too. We wrote about how GSP renewal must be a part of any “China trade” conversation here.

Imports into 38 states (plus Puerto Rico) paid at least $1 million in tariffs due to GSP expiration. The map below shows estimated tariffs paid for products claiming GSP by state.

It is critical that Congress renew GSP – with refunds for tariffs paid – as soon as possible. We strongly encourage GSP importers hurt by expiration to answer our new survey here. As always, no company-specific details will be published without permission.

Any discussion of improving competitiveness through trade – especially as it relates to diversifying supply chains away from China – must include GSP renewal. China is excluded from GSP, and many GSP countries are natural alternative suppliers to China. By eliminating tariffs on China’s competitors, GSP makes them more viable alternatives to low-cost Chinese producers.

There are no two ways about it: loss of GSP makes Chinese producers more competitive. This is especially true for products where Section 301 tariffs on China may lead U.S. companies to seek alternative suppliers given the near-perfect overlap of products included on the Section 301 lists and GSP-eligible lists. And it’s not just about expiration, the dynamic applies to all types of GSP losses.

For example, while Section 301 tariffs covered just 54% of U.S. imports from China from January-September 2021, during the same time period the products on Section 301 lists accounted for:

• 96% of the estimated $763 million in extra tariffs from GSP expiration
• 97% of the estimated $318 million in extra tariffs from individual GSP product exclusions (e.g., competitive need limitations or “CNLs”)
• 90% of the estimated $312 million in extra tariffs due to lost GSP for India

Imposing an extra $150 million per month in tariffs on China’s competitors is a funny strategy for helping American companies move supply chains out of China. Backpacks are a good example of how that strategy has failed. After GSP benefits were extended to backpacks in 2016, GSP imports steadily gained market share. The Section 301 tariffs supercharged the trend – with gains now directly at the expense of China – but GSP expiration at the end of 2020 stopped both GSP imports’ rise and Chinese imports’ fall.

“GSP” and “China” issues don’t exist in a vacuum and therefore shouldn’t be treated as such. Here’s what should be done:

1. Congress should renew GSP as soon as possible. GSP expiration cost American companies at least $763 million in extra tariffs through September, and they’re likely to top $1 billion in 2021 if not renewed this year.
   
2. As part of renewal, Congress should amend GSP rules (e.g., CNLs) to keep as much trade under the program as possible. The more tariff benefits to GSP countries, the greater the incentives to leave China (and comply with eligibility criteria, as discussed here).
   
3. The Administration should make restoring GSP for countries such as India a priority. In November, 75 House Members sent a letter supporting just that, and a U.S.-India joint statement said the U.S. would consider restored GSP. Talks should move as quickly as possible.

The letter was led by House Ways and Means Committee Members Suzan DelBene (D-WA) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and letter signers include:

• 43 Democrats and 32 Republicans in 34 different states
• 19 Ways and Means Members (10 Democrats and 9 Republicans)
• 7 of 11 Democrats and 5 of 8 Republicans on the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee

“The letter shows that strong, bipartisan support remains for win-win outcomes on trade, such as restored GSP for India” said Dan Anthony, Executive Director of the Coalition for GSP. “Program users are hopeful the letter will help advance U.S.-India discussions as well as refocus attention on the need for Congress to renew GSP.”

The letter supports a framework to restore GSP soon after Congress renews the program if there can be tangible progress on resolving market access issues that led India to lose its GSP back in 2019.

But the facts show that restored GSP for India would help American workers, manufacturers, farmers, etc. in its own right:

• Americans have paid up to $800 million in extra tariffs due to lost GSP for India. For example, one of the categories facing the most tariffs are agricultural chemicals, hurting both the manufacturers that turn bulk products into retail forms and the farmers that must pay more for the end product. One repeated refrain from companies: tariffs didn’t move sourcing out of India, but higher costs led importers to scale back expansions or other domestic manufacturing plans. In part because…
  
• Tariffs from lost GSP for India disproportionately harms American manufacturers. Over 75% of (previously) GSP-eligible imports from India are raw materials, components, and parts used to produce other things in the United States. For the current GSP countries, the figure is closer to 50%. The imports-as-inputs shares are even higher in big manufacturing states such as Texas (83%), Ohio (84%), Pennsylvania (89%), and Michigan (95%). Lost GSP for India make American manufacturers less competitive in the US and export markets.
  
• The pain appears very one-sided – on the wrong side – as imports from India are rising (likely due to China tariffs). Americans are paying more and scaling back investments, but imports of (previously) GSP-eligible imports from India are up 20%+ compared to before GSP was terminated. Why? Probably because 92% of those imports would face Section 301 if imported from China. New 4% tariffs on India don’t seem so bad compared to 25% tariffs on China for similar products. Imports from India of products facing 25% when imported from China have driven recent import growth.
  
• India is still very much a developing country, and Covid has made the situation worse. According to the World Bank, in 2019 India’s per capita income was just $2,120 – about the same as Ghana, Nigeria, and East-Timor. According to Pew Research, the number of people in India with incomes of $2 or less a day increased by 75 million, with a total of 134 million now living on less than $2 a day. Another 1.162 billion people in India – 3.5 times the entire US population – live on between $2-10 per day.

Some facts on GSP expiration:

• American companies paid at least $760 million in extra taxes from January to September 2021 due to GSP expiration. The breakdown of tariffs paid by state is available here.
  
• Tariffs due to GSP expiration primarily affect small businesses. Past research has shown the typical GSP importer has 10-15 employees and saves $100,000-$200,000 annually as a result of the GSP program. Small businesses – often supplying niche products – dominate the over 300 American organizations that sent a letter to Congressional trade leaders urging retroactive GSP renewal in late September.
  
• Retroactive GSP renewal would provide meaning relief to companies dealing with supply chain disruptions, higher freight costs, and other inflationary pressures. While tariffs are not the driver of these issues, refunding tariffs paid would help small businesses in particular that do not have the resources to pay tariffs without passing the costs along in the form of higher prices.

The “temporary” GSP lapse could lead to permanent closure for Bueno of California, which already has paid over $800,000 in extra tariffs due to GSP expiration. That is a massive amount for the 20-person company in Fullerton, California, which sells handbags, wallets, and soft carry-all luggage both online and through major retailers in the United States and Canada. For Bueno, new costs have meant declining orders, layoffs, and canceled investments – and possibly worse in the near future.

I might close the company once our lease expires. The US government is not friendly to small business owners.

Bueno of California President Joseph Pagliaro

The feeling that tariffs are unavoidable is particularly strong in (though not limited to) the travel goods industry. Section 301 remedies imposed on China starting in 2018 now raise tariffs on travel goods by up to 45%. Like many others, Bueno found new suppliers in India and Cambodia to avoid these “outrageous” tariffs. Then India’s GSP was terminated in 2019, raising tariffs on those products. Then Congress allowed the entire GSP program to lapse at the end of 2020, raising tariffs on Cambodian too. Not to mention a global pandemic that has reduced demand for travel-related products such as luggage. There are no good options, and Bueno is now buying more from China despite the 45% tariffs.

Reduced orders hurt GSP’s development goals in Cambodia, whose GDP per capita of $1,513 in 2020 was about 42 times smaller than the United States. After years of growth, Cambodia’s GDP per capita declined 8% in 2020, more than three times the 2.6% decline in the United States. Bueno’s contract factories, which employ mostly women, must pass U.S. safety and social compliance audits done by independent audit company. These are “good jobs” at risk for vulnerable populations that desperately need them.

While Congress can renew GSP “retroactively,” decisions such as “close the business instead of renew the lease” are not so easy to undo. Congress must renew GSP before it is too late for all the companies in Bueno of California’s situation.

Note: this example came from a new Coalition survey on expiration impacts. It was published with permission. GSP importers are encouraged to take the survey here – no company-specific details will be published without such permission.

It should go without saying: if policymakers want U.S. companies to buy less from China and more from other countries, they shouldn’t also raise tariffs on those other countries. But since imposing Section 301 tariffs on China, that’s exactly what they did by:

1. Ending GSP benefits for major countries (e.g., terminating GSP for India and Turkey in 2019, suspending half of Thailand’s benefits in 2020; result: $800+ million in extra tariffs);
   
2. Ending GSP benefits for major products (some Brazilian chemicals/countertops and Argentine essential oils in 2018, jewelry from Indonesia and plywood from Ecuador in 2020; result: about 1/3 of all “GSP eligible products” are now excluded due to similar decisions), and
   
3. Letting the entire program lapse on December 31 (result: nearly $500 million in extra tariffs in the first half of 2021).

Given those actions, it should be no surprise that companies are abandoning suppliers in GSP countries to buy more from China. It is impossible to make long-term sourcing plans based on GSP when tariff benefits for your country, or product, or the entire program, may lose benefits at any time.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress can help U.S. companies shift supply chains by renewing GSP (for a long time) and updating product rules so that GSP countries become more viable alternatives to China. Or it keep tariffs on China’s competitors high by letting GSP remain expired.

Some basic facts

• GSP covers a very small share of beneficiary countries exports. GSP covered just 11% of U.S. goods imports from GSP countries in 2020. Factoring in services exports to the United States and exports to other countries, and GSP covers only about 1% of total exports from GSP countries in any given year.
  
• Even compared to other U.S. preferences, GSP benefits are very limited. A common refrain is “updating” GSP criteria to match programs like AGOA. But AGOA covers an extra 1,400 products eligible only for least-developed countries (LDCs) in GSP, plus apparel and footwear and agricultural products wholly excluded from GSP, and has no import caps (e.g., GSP’s “competitive need limitations”, or CNLs). The result: excluding Section 232 tariffs, average tariffs on imports from GSP countries were more than 20x higher than tariffs on AGOA countries in 2020.

It is one thing to say “GSP should be more like AGOA,” but it’s something very different to say “GSP should adopt AGOA criteria – and then some – but not receive any of the AGOA benefits.” Because the lack of benefits has severely limited GSP’s effectiveness as a “stick” on multiple occasions in recent years.

Real-world example #1

Bangladesh is the textbook example of how GSP coverage limitations eliminate any leverage that U.S. policymakers may wish to exert through GSP reviews. Bangladesh lost GSP in 2013 for failure to address freedom of association violations and ongoing safety issues in the garment sector. Yet impacts were more symbolic than economic. Despite being an LDC, GSP covered just 0.7% of U.S. imports from Bangladesh in 2012. Put differently, GSP termination was wholly irrelevant to 99.3% of Bangladeshi exports to the United States, including for the sectors (e.g., apparel) of greatest concern.

The prospect of restored GSP for improved labor conditions remains economically irrelevant today. Excluding face masks, not a single one of Bangladesh’s top 100 exports to the United States in 2020 would benefit from restored GSP benefits.

Real-world examples #2-4

Perceived lack of impact is not limited to Bangladesh, but don’t take our word for it: nearly all press reports within GSP countries cite the lack of product coverage and/or import caps such as CNLs as reasons why. Here are some examples:

• An October 2019 Bangkok Post article cited a Thai government report showing expected exports would drop by about $30 million, or 0.01% of exports to the world, due to suspending GSP for 1/3 of covered products from Thailand. A private analyst said GSP suspensions would not impact publicly listed companies “because major Thai agro-industrial food and seafood conglomerates, such as Thai Union Group Plc (TU) and Charoen Pokphand Foods Plc (CPF), do not receive any GSP privileges for exporting shrimps, tuna and animal feed.” Seafood and agricultural industries were the major areas of concern, so like in Bangladesh the impacts of expiration don’t fall on the sectors where the United States is most keen to see change.
• A June 2019 article in the India’s The Diplomat noted that excluding apparel and footwear “has often limited the expansion and diversification of exports from developing countries,” while CNLs “created a lot of uncertainty and confusion related to the re-designation of the GSP status of a particular product after the export volumes have gone below the threshold.” Also in June 2019, CRISIL (a subsidiary of S&P Global) wrote that GSP suspension “will have limited impact on India’s overall export trade” and noted “pharmaceuticals and textiles & apparel would be relatively unscathed.”
• A March 2019 article in Turkey’s Daily Sabah stated “Another important point is that the Turkish textile and apparel sector will not be exposed to any additional tax increases since it is not already covered by the GSP system, just like the processed agricultural products sector.“

Two recommendations to make countries care more about keeping GSP benefits

Update “competitive need limitation” rules, particularly related to product restoration, to bring more products non-sensitive back under the program. CNL rules have eliminated as much as 1/3 of GSP benefits over the past 25 years due to ever-smaller threshold increases and the practice of not restoring GSP benefits even when products fall below the thresholds in future years. Over 90% of excluded products would not be at risk of losing GSP today because imports since GSP loss. As discussed in more detail here, some simple CNL changes that could have a big impact include:

• Reset the benchmarks to match original growth rates;
• Make reinstated GSP for products below CNLs the norm;
• Make reinstated GSP for products above CNLs an option, and
• base CNL calculations only on products claiming GSP.

An underappreciated point: if moving from “bad” actors that lose GSP based on new criteria to “good” GSP actors causes imports from good actors to exceed CNLs, the current rules incentivize companies to continue sourcing from bad actors. Effective leverage requires viable sourcing alternatives, but CNL rules limit those options.

Create a process for identifying/adding non-sensitive apparel and footwear products to GSP. In 2020, the United States imported $15 billion in apparel and footwear from GSP countries that were subject to duties and ineligible for GSP. Excluding oil, that was more than 2x as much as imports subject to duties/ineligible for GSP of all other products combined – and would be much higher if counting imports from countries like Bangladesh and India that may really strive for GSP restored with potential benefits for apparel and footwear. Apparel and footwear are politically sensitive – for producers in FTA partners, other preference program beneficiaries, and the United States – but finding a subset of products to add to GSP should not be impossible.

A two-part check could eliminate concerns of current FTA/preference country and U.S. producers alike:

• Check #1 (for foreign producers): limit new GSP apparel/footwear petition to products where less than 10% of imports claimed any sort of duty-free treatment;
• Check #2 (for domestic producers): create an MTB-like process to further limit benefits to products without sufficient domestic production.

Those criteria could protect sensitive supply chains/domestic production while (likely) opening up billions of dollars in apparel/footwear trade to GSP benefits. They also could encourage new sourcing of products currently not made in the US/FTA/preference countries from GSP countries instead of non-beneficiaries like China. All while increasing GSP countries’ incentives to comply with new and existing GSP eligibility criteria significantly.

Read more on how Congress should:

• make countries care more about keeping GSP benefits (this post)
• help countries make progress on the new criteria
• prevent abuse/misapplication of the new criteria
• minimize collateral damage when actions are necessary

Due to GSP country terminations of Turkey (May 2019) and India (June 2019) and partial suspensions of Thailand (April 2020, December 2020), American companies have paid about $800 million in extra tariffs. Despite costs to American companies and workers rapidly approaching $1 billion, there has been no progress on any of the issues raised in those country reviews.

With GSP expired for six months, why are we worried about old country reviews? Because the Senate-passed GSP renewal legislation, the House Republican companion bill, and a separate House Democratic bill, all add numerous criteria that could be justified to revoke a country’s GSP status but nothing providing direct help or indirect incentives for countries to comply. If history is a guide, new tariffs on Americans are much more likely than U.S. policy “wins” in GSP countries. Congress should do everything in its power to avoid setting up such lose-lose situations as part of its GSP renewal bill.

Tariff trends make the (lack of) outcomes look even worse. If exporters in India/Turkey/Thailand were suffering, you’d expect to see U.S. tariffs faced falling over time as American companies cut back orders and found alternative sources in other countries. The opposite has happened, with tariffs paid on (previously GSP-eligible) imports from all three countries hitting new highs in April and/or May 2021. While American companies pay $50+ million per month in extra tariffs, the exporters in India, Turkey, and Thailand are thriving. American companies and workers clearly have borne the brunt of GSP terminations.

It’s worth reiterating: there has been no resolution of – or even tangible improvements on – any of the issues raised during the country reviews. There have been no “victories” for American companies or interests, only losses. That includes export losses given that India stopped delaying imposition of Section 232 steel/aluminum retaliatory tariffs immediately after GSP talks collapsed.

This is not to suggest that eligibility criteria can’t or shouldn’t be added. But if policymakers want to create an environment where new criteria are more likely to raise standards – and avoid lose-lose outcomes like these recent cases – Congress should incorporate other changes into GSP renewal legislation to:

• make countries care more about keeping GSP benefits
• help countries make progress on the new criteria
• prevent abuse/misapplication of the new criteria
• minimize collateral damage when actions are necessary

To be clear: they’re not paid by the countries and haven’t achieved any other U.S. policy goals and won’t be refunded if benefits are reinstated. They’re just $500 million in new taxes on U.S. companies at a time of unprecedented economic collapse and job losses.

Above is the breakdown of estimated tariffs paid by state. Imports into California and New Jersey have faced about $50 million in new tariffs each. Companies in traditional – or newfound – election battleground states Texas, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio were all in the top 10 of tariffs paid, collectively paying up to $168 million in extra taxes.

And the taxes paid continue to climb.

The bulk of taxes – up to $366 million from June 2019 to August 2020 – have been paid on imports from India. The typical GSP importer from India had 14 employees and saved $100,000 per year. The burden falls overwhelmingly on small businesses struggling to make it through the pandemic, not the large multinational that can rapidly shift sourcing to suppliers in other countries. A report from April 2019 profiled many U.S. companies that would be hurt by termination for India (and others).

Up to $111 million in tariffs have been paid on imports from Turkey from May 2019 to August 2020. In similar comments submitted as part of the Turkey review, we noted the typical GSP importer from Turkey had 14 employees and saved about $150,000 annually. The Turkey review was launched over “market access” issues, but there were no known discussions about resolving issues. Instead, Turkey was “graduated” for sufficient economic development despite just entered a recession and having a GDP per capita that has now fallen in 5 consecutive years (the metric used to determine if countries should be graduated from GSP automatically).

Up to $23 million in tariffs have been paid on imports from Thailand from May 2020 to August 2020. Importers from Thailand tend to be a little bigger – but far from large! – with the typical importer having 28 employees and savings $183,000 annually under GSP. Most unhelpfully, the product facing the most tariffs appear to be face masks. Higher tariffs on face masks may not have seemed like a big deal when Thailand’s partial suspension was announced in October 2019, but we’re in a very different world with mask imports surging due Covid-19.

Potential GSP renewal legislation is highly unlikely to address country-specific issues, but the impacts from terminations are no less real for American companies than the prospects of expiration. If Congress considers changes to the GSP programs in the future, ensuring importers interests are not ignored in the country review processes should be a top priority.

For many years, TRI’s GSP savings funded multiple full-time salaries. Despite loss of GSP for products imported from India and Turkey, GSP “still saves our company the equivalent of more than a full-time employee’s annual salary.”

Watch TRI Executive Vice President and CFO Jeff Wright explain how “maintaining full employment, full wages, and employee benefits is our top priority as is supporting our US customers who are trying to do the same for their American workers” – and how GSP renewal would help them do it.

If you’re a GSP importer, submit your own video testimonial here.

GSP eliminates tens of thousands of dollars in tariffs annually for dZi, “enough to pay for staff health care or a new employee.” dZi’s 10-person staff in western Massachusetts handle all aspects of design, marketing, warehousing, fulfillment, and customer service – “soup to nuts” as founder and CEO Mac McCoy says.

Watch Mac explain why he urges “all of Congress to move on this cornerstone of good American policy that helps both businesses in our country and struggling communities in developing countries.”

If you’re a GSP importer, submit your own video testimonial here.