The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is performing its four-year review of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, and prominent seafood industry members have mixed opinions on whether the tariffs should be renewed for the goods they trade in.
The review is a statutory requirement of the tariffs, and will cover the 6 July, 2018, tariff action that was later modified in 23 August, 2018. The actions, taken by the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump, placed 25 percent tariffs on a swathe of seafood products. In turn, China placed its own tariffs on a wide array of U.S. seafood products, including salmon, lobster, shrimp, cod, tuna, pollock, oysters, scallops, Dungeness crab, snow crab, sablefish, and geoduck.
Those tariffs have remained in place, and so far the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has been unwilling to remove the tariffs on Chinese goods.
The review will determine whether the Section 301 tariffs should be continued or not, as under current rules the tariffs will expire after four years unless deliberately renewed. Numerous seafood industry trade organizations and companies have contributed public comments as part of the review.
The National Fisheries Institute opposes the continuation of the tariffs due to the trade barriers they have had on the U.S. seafood industry.
“The Section 301 tariffs have harmed U.S. seafood importers and exporters, and their American workers, even as the duties have done nothing to discipline China for its violations of U.S. and international trade laws – violations that everyone agrees have nothing to do with fish,” NFI wrote.
NFI argued the tariffs have raised costs for U.S. seafood producers and U.S. consumers.
“NFI estimates that U.S. producers – the vast majority of them small businesses – have paid almost USD 750 million [EUR 687 million] and counting in Section 301 tariffs over nearly four years,” NFI said.
The total would be even higher without tariff exclusions on certain products, such as king crab meat, snow crab meat, haddock, and other species, NFI said.
Arctic Fisheries President Michael Kotok also issued a public comment, arguing the tariffs are also harming many consumers during a time of record seafood inflation.
Kotok, specifically referencing pollock, said tariffs run counter to the U.S.’s own goals and an additional tariff on pollock would be harmful. Frozen pollock fillets are currently not included among the Section 301 tariffs.
“This is a fish, so effectively taxing Americans during a recession on a value-priced seafood item, low in calories, high in protein, seems to be counter to the U.S.'s own nutritional advice,” Kotok wrote. “The effects on the sector, of course, would be negative. But the effect on U.S. consumers and U.S. consumers' health would be worse.”
Other seafood organizations, however, want the tariffs to continue – or even expanded to cover more species and product types. The At-Sea Processors Association and the Pacific Seafood Processors Association, in a joint letter to the USTR, said the tariffs level the playing field and “safeguard the interests of U.S. seafood producers int eh domestic market,” and an additional tariff on pollock would benefit U.S. businesses and do relatively little harm to the industry.
According to data supplied by the associations, the portion of U.S.-harvested pollock exported for processing is 4 percent. Of that amount, 72 percent of it is sent to China. Then, roughly 10 percent of that pollock is exported by China to the U.S.
“The amount of U.S.-harvested Alaska pollock that is processed in China and then re-imported to the United States is less than 0.3 percent of the total U.S. Alaska pollock harvest by value,” the associations said. “USTR’s decision to leave Alaska pollock products outside the scope of Section 301 tariffs appears to minimize, misunderstand, or ignore the critical question of harvest origin.”
The Southern Shrimp Alliance is also calling for the tariffs to be extended. Section 301 tariffs on shrimp products have been beneficial to the U.S. shrimp industry, the group said.
“Presently, shrimp import volumes have reached unprecedented levels and pose a substantial threat to our industry. Nevertheless, the additional tariffs on Chinese shrimp in place as part of the Section 301 action have provided the industry with relief from the harm caused by the presence of substantial quantities of Chinese shrimp in the U.S. market,” the SSA said. “If the Section 301 action against Chinese seafood imports is not continued, Chinese shrimp is likely to attempt to reclaim market share in the United States, placing even further downward pressure on prices in our market.”
The USTR has not yet issued a deadline on when it will finalize its review and make its decision.
Photo courtesy of Mark Van Scyoc/Shutterstock
