china tarriffs on lcd monitors price

Otherwise, without such Approval, even if the goods have arrived at the China Customs, they will not be cleared normally, and the goods will be detained in the port till get such approval, or even be returned, causing you huge losses.

Approximately 90 percent of all LCD modules are manufactured in mainland China. The remaining 10 percent are manufactured primarily between Japan and Taiwan, and some in Korea. China’s clear stronghold in manufacturing, coupled with its large volume of imports to the U.S., mean these tariffs will definitely impact the industry.

The US government said the tariffs where created in response to China’s Unfair Trade Practices. Specifically, the Section 301 investigation by the USTR revealed:

China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.

China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets to generate large-scale technology transfer.

China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks to gain unauthorized access to commercially valuable business information.

Unfortunately, while the USTR works to rectify inequities in these unfair practices, many American manufacturers will have to pay higher prices for their components. That works its way up the supply chain and can ultimately lead to higher prices for American consumers.

The USITC (Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements) is responsible for publishing the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSA). The HTSA provides the applicable tariff rates and statistical categories for all merchandise imported into the United States; it is based on the international Harmonized System, the global system of nomenclature that is used to describe most world trade in goods. Although the USITC publishes and maintains the HTSA in its various forms, Customs and Border Protection is the only agency that can provide legally binding advice or rulings on classification of imports.

Many people are asking about using alternate HTC codes with lower burden implications. Unfortunately, these codes are abundant and complicated. There should be exactly one code that properly categorizes your product.

When a display is designed and built for a single application, it may be more appropriate to use a harmonized tariff code for the end-product instead of the display component. An LCD in a cellphone is a good example of this.

A popular way to do this is to reevaluate your current HTC codes and make sure they’re correct. This can be done with in-house council or the use of a consultant specializing in this area of the government. Ultimately, however, you need get a ruling from the government to be certain you are using the correct code.

Some companies are searching for key suppliers outside of the China region and working towards qualifications of those factories. Others are exploring having key components of the purchased assembly outsourced outside of China so it still satisfies the correct definition of Country of Origin. Again, violating these definitions can lead to costly fines and penalties.

All the information, data and documents are provided by ETCN only for your reference. ETCN promises to collect and edit them in due care but shall not be liable for their correction and accuracy. In case of any discrepancy, official versions and interpretations shall prevail.

May 10thsees the US-China trade dispute escalating yet again as the US continues to hike tariffs on US$200 billion worth of Chinese imports, going from 10% to 25%.TrendForcepoints out that TVs , monitors, notebooks and other display products were not among the US$250 billion worth of goods hit by the 25% tariffs, thus the current impact on panels and the display industry remains to be fairly limited.

Yet tensions amid the US-China trade war has intensified. China has swiftly responded in retaliation, imposing 5%-25% punitive tariffs of its own on US$60 billion worth of goods on May 13th, Taipei Time. Likewise, the US has released its 4thlist of tariffs, including US$325 billion worth of China exports among the items to suffer 25% tariffs. Notebooks, which make up a sizeable proportion of imports in revenue, are especially deserving of close attention.

The significance of notebook PCs lies in 3 areas, and one should note that not only are the US and China both harmed by the high tariffs, but Taiwan is also caught up in the storm. First of all, nearly 90% of notebook PCs imported to the US are assembled in China, with Chongqing as its main industrial city for these products. Lacking other production bases of similar scale with highly integrated supply chains for flexible procurement, China will suffer a terrible hit in exports should punitive tariffs begin to fly.

Secondly, the North American notebook PC market is highly reliant on domestic brands in the US. According to TrendForce"s global shipment statistics for notebook PC brands 2018, American brands HP, Dell and Apple"s market shares combined comprised up to 66% of the entire North American market. Looking at it from another angle, shipments for the North American market took up 40~50% of total shipments and formed the main source of business for each of the three giants. If tariffs are imposed on notebook PCs, American brands will begin to lose competitive power due to elevated costs from tariffs, impacting both business and profits. If the tariffs reflect themselves in the end prices for notebook PCs, then there will be good reason to worry whether the North American market, which comprises up to a third of global notebook PC shipments,will suffer from a stifled sales momentum. Should that come to pass, it shall be mayday for both American notebook PC brands and the global notebook market.

Lastly, Taiwan"s suppliers have long accumulated competitive power in and concentrated on notebook PC manufacturing. The three aforementioned American brands all depend 90% on Taiwan"s suppliers. If punitive tariffs become unavoidable, Quanta, Compal and Wistron may become another center of impact in this disaster . Some notebook PC ODMs have expanded their production capacities in Vietnam, Taiwan and other locations outside China since 2018 in an attempt to minimize the potential impacts from tariffs. Although the change in places of production may circumvent the tariffs, notebook PC supply chains have long been situated in China. Shipping the relevant upstream components to new plants overseas of China will incur additional fees and time costs, thus leading to an inevitable overall increase in cost despite the tariff work-around.

In TV markets, having TVs made in Mexico and shipped to America for sale have always been the business model for years under considerations of tariff-related incentives and logistic costs. Taking the current top four TV brands by market share for example, we see that Samsung and LG have enormous production capacities in Mexico, allowing the two Korean manufacturers to circumvent the towering tariffs on China imports with ease, thanks to the additional resources at hand.

In contrast, Chinese brand TCL, catapulted by sharp price strategies, and Vizio are still highly reliant on China manufacturers for production. Although TCL possesses some capacity in Mexico, it is only enough for 50% of US demand. That is to say, once TVs are included in the list of products to suffer punitive tariffs, a reshuffling of brands by brand strength and market shares shall ensue.

The merchandise under consideration is referred to as Touchscreen LCM Display Monitor Modules, PNs E205048, E186819, E205247, E187005, and E846974. The subject Touchscreen Display Monitors are described as LCD displays of varying screen sizes, each having a capacitive touch overlay, but are not imported with an attached bezel. Based on the information provided, the fully functional Touchscreen LCM Display Monitor Modules are principally used with automatic data processing (ADP) machines, such as the Elo X-Series Computer Module.

In your request you suggest that the subject Touchscreen Display Monitors are classified in subheading 8528.52.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as monitors, not incorporating television reception apparatus, and being capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an ADP machine of heading 8471.  However, in their entirety, these touchscreen monitors are more specifically provided for elsewhere in the tariff.  Therefore, classification in subheading 8528.52.0000, HTSUS, is not applicable.

The General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) to the HTSUS govern the classification of goods in the tariff schedule. GRI-1 states, in pertinent part, that "for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes . . . ." And although not dispositive, the Explanatory Notes (ENs) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level and facilitate classification under the HTSUS by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and the GRIs.

As stated, the subject Touchscreen LCM Display Monitor Modules are designed to connect directly to an ADP machine for the purpose of performing input and output functions in an ADP system. The ENs describe an ADP system as consisting of a central processing unit, an input unit, and an output unit and states that an input unit and output unit can be combined into one single unit within the system.

Further to meeting the conditions of Note 5(C), the unit must not be excluded from any of the conditions provided for in Note 5(D) and Note 5(E) of Chapter 84, HTSUS. While monitors and projectors are excluded from classification in heading 8471, the subject Touchscreen LCM Display Monitor Modules are not merely a display monitor, but instead meet the conditions set forth in the legal notes for ADP systems by comprising two of the three components within the system, namely the input and the output. As the touchscreen and the LCD panel are permanently combined into a single unit, and the display unit is principally used within an ADP system for the purpose of performing a data processing function, the subject Touchscreen Display Monitors will be classified by name and in accordance with GRI-1 as a combined input output unit for ADP.

The applicable subheading for the Touchscreen LCM Display Monitor Modules, PNs E205048, E186819, E205247, E187005, and E846974 will be 8471.60.1050, HTSUS, which provides for “Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; Input or output units, whether or not containing storage units in the same housing: Combined input/output units: Other.” The general rate of duty will be Free.

Effective July 6, 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) imposed an additional tariff on certain products of China classified in the subheadings enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III U.S. Note 20(b), HTSUS. The USTR imposed additional tariffs, effective August 23, 2018, on products classified under the subheadings enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III U.S. Note 20(d), HTSUS. Subsequently, the USTR imposed further tariffs, effective September 24, 2018, on products classified under the subheadings enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III U.S. Note 20(f) and U.S. Note 20(g), HTSUS. For additional information, please see the relevant Federal Register notices dated June 20, 2018 (83 F.R. 28710), August 16, 2018 (83 F.R. 40823), and September 21, 2018 (83 F.R. 47974). Products of China that are provided for in subheading 9903.88.01, 9903.88.02, 9903.88.03, or 9903.88.04 and classified in one of the subheadings enumerated in U.S. Note 20(b), U.S. Note 20(d), U.S. Note 20(f) or U.S. Note 20(g) to subchapter III shall continue to be subject to antidumping, countervailing, or other duties, fees and charges that apply to such products, as well as to those imposed by the aforementioned Chapter 99 subheadings.

Products of China classified under subheading 8471.60.1050, HTSUS, unless specifically excluded, are subject to the additional 10 percent ad valorem rate of duty. At the time of importation, you must report the Chapter 99 subheading, i.e., 9903.88.03, in addition to subheading 8471.60.1050, HTSUS, listed above.

Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on the World Wide Web at https://hts.usitc.gov/current.

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Karl Moosbrugger at [email protected]

Model EP4203r is intended to be used as a commercial display monitor for dynamic advertisement in high-visibility locations, such as retail settings, banks, and universities. This LCD monitor, which has a diagonal-screen size of about 42 inches and an LED back-lit display, is capable of displaying signals or data from an ADP machine in a form that meets the requirements of the user. In addition, it contains a media player and has the ability to reproduce or record video internally or through a USB storage device. This display does not contain a TV tuner.

Model CDE3201LED is intended to be used as a commercial display monitor and is marketed as an ideal solution for business, hospitality, and video entertainment needs. This monitor, which has a diagonal-screen size of about 32 inches and an LED back-lit display with a full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution, is capable of displaying signals or data from an ADP machine in a form that meets the requirements of the user. However, this display does not contain a TV tuner and does not have the capability to reproduce or record video.

Model CDP6530T is intended to be used as a commercial display monitor and is marketed for various applications, such as in transportation, hospitality, and corporate messaging. This monitor, which has a diagonal-screen size of about 65 inches and a full HD touch interactive LCD screen with a 1920 x 1080p panel resolution, is capable of displaying signals or data from an ADP machine in a form that meets the requirements of the user. Further, this monitor contains a subsidiary feature of optical two-touch capability that is functional with a finger or a stylus. However, this display does not contain a TV tuner and does not have the capability to reproduce or record video.

The applicable subheading for model EP4203r will be 8528.59.2100, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus…: Other monitors: Other: Color: With a flat panel screen: Incorporating video recording or reproducing apparatus: Other: Flat panel display devices designed for use with an automatic data processing machine, as defined in additional U.S. note 13 to chapter 85. The rate of duty will be Free.

The applicable subheading for models CDE3201LED and CDP6530T will be 8528.59.3100, HTSUS, which provides for Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus…: Other monitors: Other: Color: With a flat panel screen: Other: Other: Flat panel display devices designed for use with an automatic data processing machine, as defined in additional U.S. note 13 to chapter 85. The rate of duty will be Free.

Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/.

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Lisa Cariello at (646) 733-3014.

Washington, DC -The United States Trade Representative (USTR) today announced the next steps in the process of imposing an additional tariff of 10 percent on approximately $300 billion of Chinese imports.

On May 17, 2019, USTR published a list of products imported from China that would be potentially subject to an additional 10 percent tariff.  This new tariff will go into effect on September 1 as announced by President Trump on August 1.

Certain products are being removed from the tariff list based on health, safety, national security and other factors and will not face additional tariffs of 10 percent.

Further, as part of USTR’s public comment and hearing process, it was determined that the tariff should be delayed to December 15 for certain articles.  Products in this group include, for example, cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, and certain items of footwear and clothing.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Two days after Independence Day 2018, President Donald Trump’s aggressive new tariffs went into effect, imposing anextra 25% taxon imported Chinese goods. This affected over $50 billion worth of “industrially significant technologies” used by U.S. electronics manufacturers and their buyers.

Many industry groups held their tongues in hopes that the president would successfully force Beijing to play fairer with intellectual property rights and more. Until early May 2019, that seemed likely, as Trump repeatedly claimed a historic trade deal with China was imminent.

So, why are electronics makers suddenly looking at the possibility of tariffs on virtually everything? And where will the tariffs on electronics from China end up as we approach 2020?

In mid-June, 7 days of hearings were held before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on the president"s proposal to expand tariffs to an additional $300 billion in imports from China. These are pretty much the only imports from China -- from any industry -- that remain tariff-free.

The USTR has gotten more than 1,000s of written comments on the plan, almost all of them condemning the tariff proposal. They say the additional measures would:

Trump"s recent threats toimpose tariffs on Mexican imports in a dispute over border security, coupled with fading prospects for a compromise in the China trade war, has resulted in increasingly loud opposition.

On September 1, 2019 tariffs were instituted on roughly $110 billion in Chinese imports. This change hit a variety of markets, including apparel, footwear, home textiles, and some technology products -- including the Apple Watch.

Tariffs of 25% imposed previously on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods are set to rise to 30%. That was initially going to happen Oct. 1, but in September the president announced a delay to Oct. 15.

So, what does this mean? All suppliers should be expected to pass through current and any new tariffs. In 2018 this meant raising costs of all components listed in the Section 301 tariff act, including:

Since many suppliers produce components in multiple countries, you may not know until shipping whether the “country of origin” for your components will be China. This means that when placing orders, ECM buyersdo not always know whether they’ll be subject to additional taxation.

Additionally, there are current talks of additional 15% tariffs being placed on about $160 billion in Chinese goods, mostly electronics including laptops and cellphones, in December of 2019.

The only way around the tariff is to ensure that goods were not reshipped into the U.S. from China via a third-party country. Most electronics contract manufacturers have provided OEMs with a surcharge, with the position that the tariffs were likely temporary. Others, however, have been charging at cost. Now, who knows how they"ll adjust charges?

A number of industry associations -- like the International Distribution of Electronics Association -- and individual businesses -- like Matric Group -- have made efforts to have component-level parts removed from the list. Still, the best thing to do in the meantime is to stay informed and know what to expect.

These are all consumer electronics tariffs. There have been rare exceptions made for general electronics, and we"ll wait to hear more about tariffs at the component level. The tariff increase"s scope has yet to be finalized, if angry U.S. CEOs have anything to say about it.

A 25% tariff on electronic components doesn"t mean a direct 25% increase in the final cost ofyour product.Some estimatesput the price hike in the 3% range for a typical low-to-mid-volume production, but that could increase if tariffs begin affecting active components like integrated circuits.

Even with the lack of consumer electronics on the currently enforced tariffs list (for now), higher prices in the supply chain have led in some cases to higher prices of finished goods for consumers.

Worried about the impact of tariffs on U.S. manufacturers? You may want help with component life cycle management? An electronics manufacturer that offers full aftermarket services can take that headache off your hands:

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

On 4 April 2018, China requested consultations with the United States concerning certain tariff measures on Chinese goods which would allegedly be implemented through Section 301-310 of the US Trade Act of 1974.

On 13 April 2018, the United States requested the Chair of the DSB to circulate to Members a communication where it indicated that the United States was willing to enter into consultations with China, without prejudice to the US view that China"s letter of 4 April 2018 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 of the DSU. On 25 April 2018, China requested the Chair of the DSB to circulate to Members a communication responding to the United States" communication of 13 April 2018. While disagreeing with the US view that China"s letter of 4 April 2018 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 of the DSU, China indicated its willingness to schedule a mutually convenient date for consultations within the scope of China"s request.

On 6 July 2018, China requested additional consultations that supplemented its consultations request of 4 April 2018. China referred to the publication by the United States on 15 June 2018 of a list of products of Chinese origin to be subject to an ad valorem duty of 25% imposed by the United States on the importation of certain Chinese products, since 6 July 2018. China maintained that these duties were only applied to China"s products and in excess of the United States" bound rates.

On 16 July 2018, the United States requested the Chair of the DSB to circulate to Members a communication referring to China"s 6 July 2018 supplement to its consultations request of 4 April 2018. The United States also referred to certain additional duties imposed by China on the importation of certain products from the United States.

On 16 July 2018, China requested additional consultations that supplemented its original consultations request of 4 April 2018 as well as its supplemental request of 6 July 2018. China referred to the publication by the United States on 10 July 2018 of a list of products of Chinese origin to be subject to an ad valorem duty of 10% to be imposed by the United States on the importation of certain Chinese products . China maintained that these duties were only to be applied to China"s products and in excess of the United States" bound rates.

On 26 July 2018, the United States requested the Chair of the DSB to circulate to Members a communication referring to China"s 16 July 2018 supplement to its consultations request. The United States indicated that the United States was willing to enter into consultations with China, without prejudice to the US view that China"s letter of 4 April 2018 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 of the DSU. The United States also referred to certain additional duties that China announced it would impose on the importation of certain products from the United States.

On 18 September 2018, China requested additional consultations that supplemented its original consultations request of 4 April 2018 as well as its supplemental requests of 6 July 2018 and of 16 July 2018. On this occasion, China referred to the publication by the United States on 17 September 2018 of a list of products of Chinese origin to be subject to an ad valorem duty of 10% from 24 September 2018 and of 25% from 1 January 2019. China maintained that these duties were only to be applied to China"s products and in excess of the United States" bound rates.

On 28 September 2018, the United States requested the Chair of the DSB to circulate to Members a communication referring to China"s 18 September 2018 supplemental consultations request. The United States indicated that it was willing to enter into consultations with China, and referred to certain additional duties on the importation of products from the United States that China had announced on 18 September 2018.

On 6 December 2018, China requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 December 2018, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

At its meeting on 28 January 2019, the DSB established a panel. Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Chinese Taipei and Ukraine reserved their third-party rights.

On 24 May 2019, China requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 3 June 2019, the Director-General composed the panel. Following the resignation of a panelist on 25 September 2019, and further to a request from China, the Director-General on 17 October 2019 appointed a new panelist.

On 9 April 2020, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that based on the timetable agreed between the parties and the panel, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of June 2020. The Chair apprised the DSB that the report would be available to the public once it was circulated to the Members in all three official languages, and that the date of circulation depends on completion of translation.

This dispute concerns China"s challenge to the additional duties that the United States imposed on certain products from China. The United States imposed these additional duties pursuant to the findings of a Section 301 Report addressing China"s practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, which the United States considers to be unfair and distortive policies of “state-sanctioned theft”, misappropriation of US technology, intellectual property, and commercial secrets.

the additional duties on a second set of products with an approximate annual trade value of USD 200 billion (List 2), initially imposed in September 2018 at 10% and subsequently raised in May 2019 to 25%.

that by engaging in bilateral negotiations to address several trade concerns — including some matters covered by this dispute — the parties had decided to settle their dispute outside the WTO, and thus reached a “settlement of the matter” within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 12.7 of the DSU; for that reason the Panel should confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and a notation that a settlement has been reached; and

that, in any event, the additional duties were justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, as measures necessary to protect US public morals. The United States argued that China"s acts, policies, and practices addressed in the relevant Section 301 Report amounted to “state-sanctioned theft” and misappropriation of US technology, intellectual property, and commercial secrets, and this violated the public morals prevailing in the United States.

The Panel recognized that an ongoing bilateral process was taking place between China and the United States. However, the Panel observed that this bilateral process seemed to be parallel to the panel proceedings, and not intended, by China at least, to replace them. The Panel found that the parties had not reached a settlement of the matter within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 12.7 of the DSU

The Panel found that the challenged additional duties were prima facie inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because they applied only to products from China; and prima facie inconsistent with Article II of the GATT 1994, because they were applied in excess of the rates to which the United States bound itself in its Schedule of Concessions.

With respect to the United States" defence under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the Panel adopted a holistic approach to determining whether the measures at issue were “necessary to protect public morals”. This approach involved an overall assessment based on the Panel"s interpretation of each element of Article XX(a) and on its application to the specific facts of this dispute. Following this holistic approach, the Panel refrained from reaching any intermediate conclusions before completing the entire analysis of whether the measures could be shown by the United States to be provisionally justified.

With respect to the identification of the public morals objective invoked by the United States, the Panel observed that the “standards of right and wrong” invoked by the United States (including norms against theft, misappropriation and unfair competition) could — at least at a conceptual level — be covered by the concept of “public morals” in Article XX(a).

With respect to the necessity of the measures, the Panel focused its analysis on the United States" explanation of how the specific measures that it chose to impose, i.e. additional duties on a wide range of selected products from China, contributed to the public morals objective invoked. The Panel directed its enquiry towards seeking to identify the nexus between the measures the United States had chosen and the US public morals concerns, in order to inform the examination of the question of whether and how the measures contributed, and could therefore be demonstrated to be “necessary”, to protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a).

Regarding the imposition of additional duties on List 1 products, the Panel found that the United States had not provided an explanation demonstrating a genuine relationship of ends and means between the imposition of additional duties on these products and the public morals objective invoked by the United States. The Panel found, in particular, that the United States had not provided evidence in support of its assertion that the products on which it imposed additional duties benefitted from practices of China that the United States considered to be contrary to its public morals, nor evidence that would more generally demonstrate how the additional duties it applied to selected products otherwise contributed to its public morals objective.

Regarding the imposition of additional duties on List 2 products, the Panel found that the United States had not provided an explanation that would allow the Panel to understand an “ends and means” relationship between the additional duties on List 2 products and the public morals objective invoked by the United States.

In summary, the Panel concluded that the United States had not provided an explanation demonstrating how the imposition of additional duties on the selected imported products in List 1 and List 2 was apt to contribute to the public morals objective invoked, and, following on from that, how they were necessary to protect public morals. The Panel found, accordingly, that the United States had not met its burden of demonstrating that the measures are provisionally justified under Article XX(a).

The Panel Report contains additional “Concluding Comments” emphasising the Panel"s awareness of the wider context in which the WTO system currently operates, which was “one reflecting a range of unprecedented global trade tensions”. The Panel pointed out that its role was not to draw any legal conclusions or make recommendations on any matters other than those it had been specifically tasked to deal with. In this connection, the Panel recalled that the Government of the United States had not, up to the present time, initiated action under the WTO DSU with respect to measures that China had imposed in response to the United States measures at issue in this dispute. The Panel emphasized that it had sought to perform diligently its adjudicatory role under Article 11 of the DSU in relation to the matters that fell within its terms of reference. Finally, the Panel expressed its encouragement to the parties to continue to work for a mutually agreed solution to the matters raised in the dispute.

On 26 October 2020, the United States notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the panel report.

President Donald Trump and his administration’s proposed expansion of tariffs of 25 percent onto roughly $300 billion worth of imports from China has caused the tech industry to respond. The latest round of tariffs may include a number of tech items, including laptops, tablets, headphones, keyboards, solid state drives and more. Now a deal has been made, though, which could delay some tariffs indefinitely.

Several technology companies, vendors and retailers made their thoughts known in public comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). That was during a period of public hearings that took place from June 17 through June 25. But the tariffs have been delayed several times. The USTR announced in August that some of the the tariffs, including many on tech which were planned for September, had previously been delayed until December 15.

Trump announced new tariffs on Twitter, but at 10 percent, on the new goods. This was after he briefly suspended the tariffs after beginning new talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. After China threatened to retaliate, Trump bumped current tariffs from 25% to 30% and upcoming tariffs in December from 10 to 15%.

In a statement on August 13, the USTR said that for "certain articles" will see delays until Dec. 15, including "cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, and certain items of footwear and clothing."

But on December 13, the Wall Street Journal reported that the two sides were coming to a limited trade deal. That calls for China to purchase $50 billion worth of agricultural goods in 2020, as well as "energy and other goods." In return, the U.S. may reduce rates on existing imports and cancel the tariffs that were meant to go into place on Dec. 15, which include many tech products.

The tariffs are wide-ranging and affect many industries, including technology, agriculture, clothing and metals. There are hundreds of product categories listed on the website for the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) of the United States. You can read the full list of the latest round of tariffs here.

8471.30.01Portable automatic data processing machines, not over 10 kg, consisting at least a central processing unit, keyboard and display.Laptops, tablets

8517.62.0090Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, nesoi.Routers, NAS devices, smart speakers, smartwatches

8517.70.00Parts of telephone sets; parts of other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for.Repair parts, especially for smartphones

8528.52.00Other monitors capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471.Flat-panel monitors

8528.72.64Color television reception apparatus w/flat panel screen, video display diagonal over 34.29 cm, incorporating a VCR or player.Flat-panel televisions

Other technologies, including discs, batteries, cameras and projectors also appear on the list in various forms. And, CPU fans, processors (8542.30.01) are also scheduled.

In August, China threatened to place tariffs on $75 billion in U.S. goods in Trump follows through on his threats to China. The plan includes tariffs of 5 or 10% on a American products, including oil, agricultural products, automobiles and more. The tariffs are scheduled to start the same days as the U.S. ones - Sept. 10 and Dec. 15.

Following this, Trump said he would raise tariffs on $250 billion of goods to 30% from 25%. New tariffs on $300 billion worth of goods in and December will move from 10% to 15%.

On October 11, the U.S. and China struck a "phase one deal" that eliminates October tariffs. December tariffs, which may affect consumer electronics, are still under discussion.

But a "Phase One" trade deal in December put an indefinite delay on some of those tariffs. Per Reuters, tariffs on laptops and cellphones won"t go into place. The Entertainment Software Association told Polygon that the tariffs also won"t affect video game consoles.

A number of tech companies have commented on the tariffs publicly, and they all have expressed a wish for, unsurprisingly, categories affecting their businesses to be removed from the list.

Two notable joint comments have also been written. The first was one from Intel, HP, Dell and Microsoft regarding laptops while another came from Nintendo of America, Microsoft and Sony Interactive Entertainment about the effects on video game consoles.

All of the comments have some commonalities. Many mention the costs of moving existing supply chains out of China to either the United States or other countries in Asia. Additionally, they point out that companies that do not serve the United States as a primary customer base could gain a competitive advantage, as well as brands outside of the United States. (Fitbit, for example, suggested Xiaomi and Huawei would be strengthened as it was affected.)

The Consumer Technology Association, a group representing technology companies, commissioned a study suggesting that the U.S. price of cell phones would rise 14%, video game consoles and laptops would each increase 19%. The price of drones would jump 15%.

In its own public comment, the Entertainment Software Association, which represents the video game industry, wrote that: “the imposition of a 10% tariff rate could place these products out of reach for many consumers – let alone a 25% tariff, which would have an even greater impact, likely causing consumers to purchase fewer consoles, controllers and accessories. This is because console makers will be unable to absorb the tariffs.

In August of 2017, the USTR began investigating the practices of the Chinese government. The investigation included policies and action regarding intellectual property, technology transfer and more.

The USTR and the office of President Donald Trump have deemed China’s policies as restricting commerce in the United States and “unreasonable or discriminatory.”

Update: Jan 27, 2:32 p.m. ET with news that the U.S. and and China have reached a "Phase 1" trade deal, which delays tariffs on phones, laptops and consoles, among other things.

Asus has promised the prices of some of its graphics cards will decline by up to 25 per cent starting next month. The company is cutting prices on Nvidia"s GeForce RTX 30-series graphic cards from April 1, including the RTX 3050, 3060, 3070, and high-end 3080 and RTX 3090 cards.

"As a result of the latest tariff lift on Chinese imports from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, gamers and PC enthusiasts will see lower prices on starting on April 1st, 2022. Asus is among the first to pass these savings on to its consumers," Asus said in a statement on Monday.

The US trade rep last week decided to end Trump-era tariffs on hundreds of imports. The list includes GPUs, which the agency described [PDF] as a "printed circuit assemblies for rendering images onto computer screens (graphics processing modules)."

Specifically, the USTR has reinstated tariff exclusions on 352 of 549 eligible imports, which includes graphics processor cards, effectively removing the duties until December 2022. This temporary reinstatement can be extended again.

From what we can tell, prices of at least some graphics cards went up in the United States due to 25 percent tariffs put in place by the Trump administration, with the cost passed onto buyers. These cards are assembled in China from parts sourced from around the world, and imported into the US from the Middle Kingdom, hence the levy slapped on them. The global shortage in chips also forced up prices as demand outstripped supply in the pandemic.

Now, with these import duties removed, some prices are going back down to where they were somewhat. This doesn"t guarantee you a card; there still needs to be enough supply to meet customer orders. And it doesn"t guarantee all manufacturers will follow suit – some may hang onto higher prices due to the demand for the equipment.

China has many chip testing and assembly operations, and was thriving in exporting components before tariffs slowed down shipments of GPUs and other electronics.

US imports for a category of components including graphics cards made in China totaled $1.57 billion in 2021, a drop from $3 billion in 2020, according to information extracted by The Register from the US International Trade Commission website.

American imports of that category from China peaked in 2018 at $4.4 billion. After tariffs were imposed by the Trump administration that year, imports from China on that product category dropped to $1.38 billion in 2019. By comparison, imports of GPUs and related products from Taiwan, which wasn"t subject to tariffs, totaled $5.7 billion in 2021.

The tariff on products likes CPUs from China remains at 35 per cent according to information on the US Customs and Border Protection website. Trump initially imposed a 25 per cent tariff.

With tariffs lifted, graphics board makers could resume imports from China. Public import records show ASRock America, a subsidiary of Asus, importing VGA cards to the US from China-based Amertek Computer Shenzhen in July 2020. ®

A trader wipes his eyes as he watches stock prices at the New York Stock Exchange on August 23, ... [+]2019, in New York. Stocks tanked after Donald Trump vowed to escalate the trade war with China. The Dow Jones Industrial Average declined more than 600 points, or 2.4%. (DON EMMERT/AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty Images

Donald Trump’s tariffs and the trade war his administration launched against China turned out to be far more damaging than many believed. That is the conclusion of research finding companies, consumers and the U.S. economy paid a heavy price for the Trump administration’s protectionist trade policies.

In new research, Mary Amiti, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Sang Hoon Kong and David Weinstein, both economists at Columbia University, used movements in stock prices to measure the response to policy announcements on tariffs and the escalation of the U.S.-China trade war initiated by the Trump administration. “Stock prices are well suited for this purpose because firm market value equals the expected present value of future firm profits,” according to Amiti, Kong and Weinstein. “Therefore, movements in stock prices tell us about changes in the expected future value of firm-specific capital (both tangible and intangible).”

“The results suggest that markets interpreted the impact of the tariffs as much more negative than what economists initially estimated,” said David Weinstein in an interview. “Part of the reason stems from the fact that the U.S. tariffs rose significantly in 2019, and the earlier studies didn’t include these higher rates. Moreover, the new analysis suggests that the tariffs’ impact on productivity is likely to be a factor holding down U.S. growth rates. The tariffs protect the least efficient firms and reduced their incentives to innovate while hurting the most successful U.S. firms, reducing their ability to innovate.”

“We consider three ways in which firms are exposed to China: importing, exporting, and foreign sales (either through exporting or subsidiaries),” note the economists. “It is important to capture indirect imports that are ultimately purchased by U.S. firms because many firms do not import directly from China but instead obtain Chinese inputs through their subsidiaries or the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign firms. For example, Apple Computer’s exposure to China can arise through direct imports, imports obtained by its subsidiary (Beats Electronics), or from the purchase of iPhones from the U.S. subsidiary of Foxconn.”

- The economists found a long-term decline in U.S. consumer well-being (or “welfare”) of 7.8%: “Our results show that the trade-war announcements caused large declines in U.S. stock prices, expected TFP [Total Factor Productivity], and expected inflation largely by moving macro variables, but also by causing declines in the returns of firms trading with China. We find that markets expect the trade war to lower U.S. welfare by 7.8 percentage points.” Total Factor Productivity (TFP) “is the portion of output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production,” as defined by the Harvard Business School.

- The decline in stock market value caused by trade war announcements “amounted to a $3.3 trillion loss of firm value (equivalent to 16% of U.S. GDP [Gross Domestic Product] in 2019).” That is larger than the $1.7 trillion estimate in the loss of firm value in an earlier paper from the economists.

The economists identified “11 trade-war announcement dates, comprising six U.S. tariff events and five China retaliation events.” The Trump administration announced tariffs on solar panels and washing machines on January 22, 2018, which were imposed on imports from China and other countries. On February 28, 2018, the administration announced it would imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, which also affected China and other countries. “All of the subsequent U.S. tariff events only apply to China,” as discussed in the study, including the announcement on May 29, 2018, of a 25% tariff on $50 billion of Chinese imports, the announced U.S. decision to raise tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods up to 25% and others.

“The data reveal that there were large and persistent movements in stock prices and inflationary expectations following these trade-war announcements,” according to Amiti, Kong and Weinstein. “We see that the stock market fell on all of the event dates except one U.S. event date and one China event date, with a total drop of 10.4% over all of the events, and 12.9% over the three-day windows (beginning the day before the announcement and extending one day after). These drops in the market imply substantial drops in expected profitability for U.S. firms—a factor that . . . suggests will drive decreases in the expected wage.

“We explore the persistence of these stock-market movements . . . The data reveal that in the five trading days before our events, stock-price movements were quite small. Indeed, there is little evidence of anything out of the ordinary happening in the market before the announcements. However, on the announcement days . . . we see that there was a large decline of over 10%. Moreover, it is also quite striking how persistent this decline is. Even if we track the market five trading days later (approximately one week of calendar days), we see that the market did not recover. Thus, there is little evidence that markets overreacted and bounced back from their initial negative assessment of the trade war on expected returns.”

Amiti, Kong and Weinstein used a sample of 2,859 companies across sectors that are publicly traded on the U.S. stock market and present fascinating data that show more than half of publicly traded companies in the sample were connected to the Chinese economy and affected by the trade war: “We see that only 10% of the firms in our sample import directly from China, and only 2% export directly to China. However, if we take subsidiaries into account, these numbers rise to 24% and 4%, respectively. When we add imports by all firms in the supply chain, we see that 29% of all listed firms in the U.S. import directly or indirectly from China. . . . we construct a variable, ‘Firm Exposed to China’ if any firm in the firm’s network exported to or imported from China or if the firm had positive revenues from China (possibly from affiliate sales). We see that 53% of all firms were exposed to China through one or more of these channels.”

Because the courts and Congress have ceded authority over trade to presidents, Donald Trump had a free hand to conduct trade policy during his presidency. With that free hand, the evidence shows he inflicted significant damage.

Most of Donald Trump’s political appeal rested on being a businessman (as portrayed on The Apprentice) and his perceived stewardship of the U.S. economy. The latest research illustrates the negative impact of his trade policy, leading one to conclude that to the extent a president manages the economy, Donald Trump managed it poorly.

Importing computer parts from China is profitable and very popular among US importers. China is an economic juggernaut on the world stage, and the constantly evolving technology sector is thriving in Asia. Regardless of increased taxes, China is still an incredibly viable option for any importer of computer parts.

Importing computer parts from China may require Federal Communications Commission (FCC) certification due to emitted electronic signals. In most cases, FCC certification applies to finished parts rather than components. Also, Chinese computer parts fall under section 301 tariff regulations to help offset the cost of goods.

In the world of electronic components and the various accessories that go along with them, China is a world leader in terms of manufacturing and production. According to the World Publication Review, “China is the largest manufacturing economy in the world.”

Chinese manufacturing accounts for over 28% of the world"s total manufacturing production. So it’s no wonder the bulk of computer parts originate in China. However, China cannot manufacture all these components themselves, so some outsourcing is required during production.

China has numerous manufacturers and suppliers that produce and distribute computer parts worldwide. Everything from mice and keyboards to audio and video cards to hard drives and cables. Amazing deals on these components are only an import container away.

Although China currently does not manufacture its own microprocessor chips, often referred to as central processing units (CPUs). A company called HiSilicon, owned by Huawei in Guangdong, is working on developing its own CPUs to enter the market.

China is investing in making itself technology independent as part of a greater initiative set by Chinese president Xi Jinping. The focus is to make China the leader in both technology and the sciences as it relates to economics.

American, South Korean, and Taiwanese companies like Intel, Samsung, and TSMC produce and sell chipsets to China. These are secured to circuit boards made in China and then exported again worldwide.

It is important to note that TSMC is the leading supplier of chips to some of the world"s largest manufacturers of computers, graphics cards, and more. Industry giants like Apple, AMD, and Nvidia rely heavily on chips from Taiwan to make their products in China.

Companies like Apple have a long history of manufacturing their computers, phones, tablets, and accessories in China. This partnership is due to the incredible cost savings from labor, efficiency, and good working history.

Regardless of this exchange, the Chinese wish to have zero reliance on the global economy, produce solely for themselves, and sell their goods worldwide. This course of action would solidify them as the world"s definitive economic leader.

Currently, in China, a wide range of computer parts and accessories are available for import into the US. Most of the world’s computer parts and accessories originate from Chinese development and manufacturing.

As mentioned earlier, China does not currently mass-manufacture any microprocessors or their components. Three components make up a CPU, and they are:

Processor Casing: This encases the processor cores and the die. Exterior contacts are designed to match that of the motherboard so that it can connect and execute processes.

One of the biggest mistakes people often make is assuming that the term computer refers to a desktop or laptop. This statement is so incredibly false. A computer is any kind of electronic device that can compute operations and commands. So what does this mean exactly?

It means that devices like tablets, smartphones, smart TVs, and more make up the computer parts category. Most electronics today use components found inside a computer. They are just shrunk down to fit inside the device"s casing.

The list above is a small snapshot of devices that use computer parts to function and operate their tasks. With current technology, computer parts can be shrunk to unimaginable sizes, perform with little to no cooling, and operate virtually silently.

Computer parts production in China is at an all-time high. With strategic partnerships worldwide but mainly in the US, the Chinese have established themselves as a major exporter of this technology.

The computer parts industry is vast and has expanded over the years into other business sectors. Now in the common era, devices pop up every day with a new smart version of themselves. These promise to improve how we use that device and how it functions.

As an importer of computer parts, you can see the value proposition in terms of cost thanks to China’s low labor cost and production standards. Speaking with a customs consultant when you are planning to import will equip you with the confidence to stay ahead of the curve.

Computer parts really are a blanket term when thinking about advanced technologies. The product category covers everything that makes up a computer and allows it to function. However, as it was discussed in the previous section, computer parts make up more than just traditional computers.

The one constant in the computer market is the parts themselves. Regardless of change or adaptation, these parts remain the same in how they connect and what they do for a computer. The only differences that come with improvements are performance and efficiency.

The table illustrates how massive the computer parts and accessories trade is between the US and China. Some or all of these components are also used in other technologies besides a traditional desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone.

Central Processing Unit (CPU): The CPU, which is the central brain of a computer, is where every single process and executable command on a computer originate.

Random Access Memory (RAM): The RAM is the place where data sits while being used by applications or programs running in the background. The more RAM that is available, the more stable the environment on your computer.

Power Supply Unit (PSU): The PSU is what gives each part of the computer power to function. Computers will require varying degrees of power based on the components inside. A computer with a powerful GPU will require additional wattage.

Graphics Processing Unit (GPU): Although China does not make the GPU silicon, they import them into China to attach to boards they manufacture. These devices push graphical performance and fidelity on a computer.

Cables and Cooling: For the various components of a computer to function and communicate, they need a way to connect with each other. Cables are the way this is achieved. Cooling through fans or liquid reservoirs keeps everything from overheating.

Mouse: The mouse goes hand in hand with the keyboard for input. The mouse is the direct way to interact with programs and other light applications on a computer that doesn’t have touch capability.

Monitor: The monitor or display is the primary viewing device on a computer. In the past, only one monitor was needed for daily computing. However, most people today operate with more than one at their desk or terminal.

The components above are always in high demand here in the US. As an importer of these goods, there is a tremendous value and savings associated with these products. In the past, products from China were always tagged commonly as cheap or lacking in quality.

This idea is directly tied to the incredibly cheap labor pool and mass market output. However, technological advancements and quality control have changed that narrative over the years.

Chinese computer parts and accessories are manufactured and produced to compete with the top manufacturers of the world"s market. China has changed the game for importers, and they are producing higher volumes of parts and accessories at a cheaper rate.

It is important to secure a reliable trade partnership in any overseas venture. Maintaining an adequate and reliable supply chain is important for any business. This statement is especially true when a particular commodity is only available overseas.

Fortunately, the US is China’s biggest trade partner in the global community. The US is still negotiating future investment treaties with China, which will undoubtedly open additional doors with Chinese businesses should these investments prove promising.

When you are doing business in foreign countries and trying to establish lasting relationships, you must familiarize yourself with their customs and etiquette. You will get more out of doing business in China if you adhere to good business practices.

The Chinese appreciate modesty and patience above all else while also being polite and respectful. The emphasis on personal business relationships is a hallmark of how the Chinese do business.

Our experienced customs brokers have a wide breadth of manufacturer information to aid in identifying potential partnerships and finding a supplier overseas. Our industry experts steer your import business in the right direction when it comes to dealing with Chinese suppliers and manufacturers.

When importing goods directly from China, federal agencies strictly enforce various regulations depending on the commodity. A customs consultant can identify which agencies regulate your imported goods.

The US CBP is the federal body that governs and oversees all goods being brought into the US. It is their responsibility to ensure that the laws and safety measures of the US are respected and adhered to when goods enter the country.

The FCC is involved since computer parts are designated as electronics. All computer parts must acquire FCC certification before arriving at a coastal port. Both the CBP and FCC have standard documentation requirements. The CBP may request more specific documentation for new products entering customs for the first time.

Whenimporting computer parts directly from China, it’s essential to familiarize yourself with the international Harmonized System (HS). The HS code is an export and import classification system managed by the World Customs Organization (WCO).

This six-digit code system identifies, classifies, and assigns taxes and duties while tracking statistics. Additional digits further expand codes up to ten digits to create a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code used for both classification and exact taxes.

Navigating and importing the latest in computer parts can seem daunting. USA Customs Clearance has a dedicated team of consultants and licensed customs brokers with decades of combined experience.

Our team of consultants and brokers put their skill and care to the test to best meet your needs. The team provides world-class support services to assist the import process when dealing with Chinese suppliers and manufacturers.

Whether you are familiar with importing or new to the process, our services take out the stress and reduce the risk of making mistakes that can cost you time and money. Give yourself peace of mind and let the professionals handle your imports with an unmatched white glove service.

You can click for more information or call us at (855) 912-0406 and start shipping and importing with the best and most reliable consultants and brokers in the industry.

Import costs from China have become