In July alone, American companies paid over $275,000 on non-disposable cloth face masks from Thailand – and about $25,000 on other types of face masks – that face 7% tariffs without GSP. The next highest tariff line, certain off-road tires, faced a little over $200,000 in new tariffs due to lost GSP.

Such analysis was not possible until recent changes to how the United States reports import data for certain health-related products. Historically cloth face masks were reported in a catch-all “other made-up [textile] articles” category (HTS 6307.90.9889), but that catch-all category was subdivided into the following categories starting July 1:

• N95 Respirators Of Textiles (HTS 6307.90.9845)
• Respirators Of Textiles, Other Than N95 (HTS 6307.90.9850)
• Face Masks Of Textiles, Disposable (HTS 6307.90.9870)
• Face Masks Of Textiles, Other Than Disposable (HTS 6307.90.9875)
• Other Made Up Textile Articles (HTS 6307.90.9891)

Data show the old catch-all category of imports faced nearly $800,000 in tariffs in May/June – about 80% more than the next highest tariff line. And while we cannot know exactly how much of those tariffs were on masks, the July breakdown suggests it is a large majority.

Import trends clearly show tariffs from suspended GSP are hurting Americans, not Thais. While Americans are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per month in extra tariffs, Thai exporters are shipping more than ever due to surging demand from Covid-19. It’s a lose-lose scenario for everyday Americans and for those that want to use punitive tariffs as leverage.

While the specific tariff costs for Thai masks couldn’t be known until recently, the potential costs were obvious before the GSP suspension took effect. In mid-April, 17 national associations asked the Trump Administration to delay implementation of the GSP suspension. The letter warned that the move “could undermine COVID-19 response directly” and “the United States should not reduce sourcing options or raise costs for potentially important products.”

Recognizing that higher tariffs for face masks would hurt Americans, the Trump administration suspended Section 301 China tariffs on these products in March. The Administration similarly could reinstate GSP benefits for Thailand, or it could continue harming Americans by imposing punitive tariffs on needed items.

Shifting trade from China to countries like India does not appear to be a byproduct of recent actions, but instead one of President Trump’s explicit goals:

And it’s working: GSP saved American companies $105 million in March, an increase of $28 million (36%) from March 2018 and the second highest level on record. In the first quarter of 2019, GSP saved American companies $285 million. That is $63 million more than the first quarter of 2018 – itself a record-shattering year.

Products hit by Section 301 tariffs when imported from China account for 90% of increased GSP imports in 2019. Overall, GSP imports rose by about $760 million, with $672 million coming on products on China Section 301 lists. GSP imports of products on those Section 301 lists increased 19%, while GSP imports of other products increased by just 5%.

As shown last week, imports from China subject to new tariffs are down significantly. The chart below shows countries from which GSP imports of products on China Section 301 lists have increased the most in the first quarter of 2019.

For India, 97% of increased 2019 GSP imports are on the China Section 301 lists. GSP imports on Section 301 lists increased by $193 million (18%), while imports of everything else increased by just $7 million (2%).

Similarly for Turkey, 97% of increased 2019 GSP imports are on the China Section 301 lists. GSP imports on Section 301 lists increased by $40 million (13%), while imports of everything else increased by just $1.2 million (less than 1%).

For the Philippines, GSP imports of products on China 301 lists growth helped offset declining GSP imports of all other products. South Africa, Brazil, and Egypt saw similar increases in Section 301-affected products offset losses of other products.

GSP imports from Indonesia grew *only* twice as much on affected products. Yet even here growth rates are faster for products on the Section 301 lists: GSP imports of products affected by new China tariffs grew by 22%, while imports of other products grew by 15%.

Not only would terminating GSP for India, Turkey, or others under review (Thailand, Indonesia) hurt many American companies and workers that have relied on GSP for years. It also would reduce viable sourcing options for companies looking to buy less from China in response to Section 301 tariffs – thereby undermining the President’s own objectives.

American businesses: “By lowering tariffs for American companies that import under GSP, it supports jobs and investments in the United States.”

(WASHINGTON) – Over 430 American businesses and associations from across the country that currently use the Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) program to help sustain and grow their businesses today wrote to Congressional leaders asking their help in delaying a recent decision to terminate the program for India and Turkey. In their letter, the American businesses pointed out that just last year, Congress voted nearly unanimously to renew the GSP program for all eligible countries and that their help is needed in ensuring that the recent termination decisions reflect Congressional intent in overwhelmingly agreeing to continue the program.

“As representatives of American companies that would pay higher tariffs as a result of these decisions – and similar ones that could come in the future – we urge you to request a delay beyond May. This would provide Congress time to work with the Administration and ensure the decisions match both the letter and the spirit of the GSP law.” the letter states. By lowering tariffs for American companies that import under GSP, it supports jobs and investments in the United States, particularly at U.S. small businesses. Congress showed the strong bipartisan support for GSP when it reauthorized the program for three years in 2018.”

The GSP programs was established in 1974 to both promote economic development and provide duty-free imports to help American small businesses compete. As the U.S Trade Representative’s office website states, GSP: “Supports tens of thousands of jobs in the United States.  GSP also boosts American competitiveness by reducing costs of imported inputs used by U.S. companies to manufacture goods in the United States.  GSP is especially important to U.S. small businesses, many of which rely on the programs’ duty savings to stay competitive.” India and Turkey currently provide roughly a third of total GSP imports.

The businesses that sent the letter to Congress represent the profile of the average American business that benefits from the program which tend to have 20 or fewer employees and depend greatly on duty-free imports to support those employees and their overall business. The Coalition for GSP, a group of American companies, small businesses and trade associations organized to educate policy makers and others about the important benefits to American companies, workers, and consumers of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program helped organize today’s letter.

The full text of the letter:

Dear Chairmen Grassley and Neal and Ranking Members Wyden and Brady:

We are writing to express our grave concerns with the Administration’s recent announcement of intent to terminate Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program for India and Turkey. The decisions could take effect as soon as May 4, 2019. As representatives of American companies that would pay higher tariffs as a result of these decisions – and similar ones that could come in the future – we urge you to request a delay beyond May. This would provide Congress time to work with the Administration and ensure the decisions match both the letter and the spirit of the GSP law.

GSP is a 45-year old program created to promote economic development. By lowering tariffs for American companies that import under GSP, it also supports jobs and investments in the United States. Congress showed strong bipartisan support for GSP when it reauthorized the program for three years in 2018. The House of Representatives voted 400-2 in favor of GSP renewal legislation, which was then enacted into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. Congress has not just reauthorized the program in recent years but expanded it significantly in 2015 by removing the statutory prohibition on eligibility for travel goods.

Multi-year reauthorizations and expansions have had a positive impact on American companies and workers, which saved a record $1.03 billion in eliminated tariffs in 2018. Yet the Administration’s use of country practice reviews threatens to undermine Congress’ intent in reauthorizing GSP and the benefits to program users like us. About one-third of GSP savings for American importers result from the inclusion of India and Turkey in the program. Another third result from eligibility for other countries under review, such as Indonesia and Thailand.

The India decision was based on failure to resolve market access issues. The GSP statute does not require a perfect trading relationship, just assurances of reasonable and equitable treatment. There are reports that India offered significant proposals that would improve US market access for a range of products and industries. By terminating GSP, the Administration has chosen higher barriers for US imports and exports instead of more-open markets for two-way trade. This does not match the intent of the GSP program or its eligibility criteria.

The Turkey decision was based on sufficient economic development, including “rising Gross National Income (GNI) per capita.” Yet the facts do not support this decision. While Turkey has made significant strides to diversify its exports and reduce levels of poverty, according to the World Bank, Turkey’s GNI per capita declined each year from 2014 to 2017. Further declines are expected as Turkey entered recession in 2018 for the first time since the global financial crisis. This action is diametrically opposed to GSP’s original intent. Preference programs were created to promote development by giving countries a hand up, not imposing new barriers when they are down.

The decisions even are worrying to GSP program users that do not import from India or Turkey. Eight other countries are subject to pending country practice reviews, and those decisions could be announced at any time. USTR also will announce soon whether any new country practice reviews will be self-initiated for GSP beneficiaries in Europe and the Western Hemisphere soon. If the Administration chooses to terminate GSP benefits despite efforts from beneficiary countries to address U.S. concerns, and can graduate countries based on positive economic development when data suggest otherwise, what countries’ benefits are not at risk?

It is not an exaggeration to suggest that when GSP comes up for reauthorization in next year, it could be a shell of the program that so many Members of Congress supported just a year ago. The India and Turkey announcements raise serious questions about whether the Administration is enforcing congressional intent, or misusing its discretion to eliminate tariff benefits that Congress has expressly granted.

We urge you to ensure that GSP decisions follow both the letter and the spirit of the law. Jobs at our companies depend on it.

Sincerely,

VIEW ALL 438 LETTER SIGNERS HERE

Even before upward revisions, U.S. companies’ tax benefits from GSP showed massive increases from past years: American companies saved nearly $20 million per month more in 2017 because of GSP compared to just two years earlier.

Through the first half of 2018, GSP savings are up an additional 18 percent and on track to crack $1 billion for the year. While Congress renewed GSP through 2020 to give companies the certainty necessary to encourage such growth, the Trump administration has launched a number of country “eligibility reviews” that could raise taxes for American companies that depend on GSP – by a lot.

There are GSP reviews underway for India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and Turkey. American companies saved $544 million last year due to GSP for those countries. Collectively, they accounted for 61 percent of GSP savings on imports from all countries.

Given the risk of lost GSP, we strongly encourage companies importing from those countries to sign up for our GSP supporter list and take our review impacts survey, which are both free.

In terms of specific revisions based on the new data, New Jersey saw the biggest jump in savings by value, followed by Florida, California, Georgia, and New York.

Montana saw the biggest jump in GSP savings by percent, followed by Utah, Maine, Florida, and Nevada.

For supplier countries, the largest revision in US savings came on imports from the Philippines, followed by Indonesia, India, Thailand, and Brazil.

Speaking at the U.S.-India Business Council today, Vice President Mike Pence said:

The trade relationship between the United States and India is flourishing.  It’s remarkable to think that not even 20 years ago, two-way trade between our nations was less than $20 billion per year.  But by the end of last year, it had grown by more than 500 percent to an annual $115 billion in trade; and U.S. exports to India now support roughly 200,000 American jobs.

But it is not just U.S. exports to India that support jobs. Duty-free imports from India under the GSP program support American companies, workers, and even exports. As shown in the infographic below:

• GSP benefits for India saved American companies $332 million from August 2015 to April 2017 alone – more than any other country;
• India was the most important source country for a majority of U.S. states in terms of GSP tax savings;
• Nearly half (!) of companies importing under GSP from India export some of those GSP-eligible goods – or products made from them – around the world,
• American companies benefiting from GSP for India are incredibly diverse, though the vast majority are small businesses.

Vice President Pence noted that “the truth is the United States and India we believe have only scratched the surface when it comes to bilateral investment and trade.” We agree, but it would be a mistake to overlook current win-win policies such as the GSP program.

In March, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) calling for a report on the causes of “Significant Trade Deficits.” Economists generally agree that macroeconomic factors related to national savings and investment rates drive trade balances, and we subscribe to that view as well. The EO and forthcoming report ensures that much ink will be spilled on both the causes of trade deficits and whether or not those deficits matter. Instead of rehashing the arguments that others likely will make, we want to drive home one key point:

The report’s focus on bilateral trade deficits will provide misguided (at best) or counterproductive and harmful (at worst) lessons to policymakers.

Is that based on theory? No. On ideology? Nope. Then what? Actual import and export patterns provided by companies while signing up for the GSP Supporter List. Specifically, we looked at companies sourcing from three countries named in the Commerce Department’s request for comments (India, Indonesia, and Thailand) and found that many export goods (or derivative products) from the United States to third countries, but almost none export back to the GSP supplier country.

In short, companies contribute to bilateral trade deficits with some countries and bilateral surpluses with other – but a report on bilateral deficits will almost never capture those surpluses.

Take India. More than 60 companies on the GSP Supporter List report importing under GSP from India in 2016. Of those, nearly half (29) reported exporting those same goods or products made from them. Yet just one company reported exporting back to India. The rest export to third-countries and have a positive effect on those other bilateral U.S. trade balances.

Based on the Supporter List sign-up data as well as U.S. trade data, GSP imports from India by Supporter List companies helped:

• boost U.S. trade surpluses in goods with Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom, and
• reduce the trade deficits in goods with Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Trinidad, and Vietnam.

The story is similar for companies importing under GSP from Indonesia and Thailand, and therein lies the risk of policy recommendations based on bilateral trade deficits. Any import-reducing steps taken to address the trade deficit with India could negatively impact trade balances with other countries.

Increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China – or reducing the surplus with Australia – certainly is not the goal of the Executive Order, but it may well be the result if too much stock is placed on bilateral trade flows.