Thread Content
On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by the *** administration under the IEEPA were invalid； On February 21, U.S. President *** announced via social media that a global tariff of 15% would be imposed on all goods imported into the United States. This tariff dispute has prompted a cautious response from the U.S. chemical industry. It is reported that *** cited Article 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for a period of no more than 150 days in order to address \"serious balance of payments problems\". The White House later clarified that the new tariffs would be imposed on top of existing tariffs, and they must adhere to the principle of \"non-discrimination,\" with no exceptions granted to specific parties. U.S. chemical industry organizations respond to the tariff dispute. The U.S. chemical industry generally supports the Supreme Court’s decision. Jason Bernstein, Director of International Trade and Supply Chain at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said that the ACC is assessing the impact of the ruling, and if it authorizes the refund of paid tariffs, it hopes that the relevant processes can be handled promptly. He emphasized that to maintain the competitiveness of the U.S. chemical manufacturing industry, it is necessary to introduce new measures to foster growth in partnership with reliable trading partners, and to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities through targeted trade strategies. Against this backdrop, ACC emphasized the importance of the USMCA in strengthening the chemical industry’s supply chains, calling for its timely renewal and full implementation, particularly its chemicals annex. ACC stated that regardless of the outcome of the ruling, it will work with the government to enhance the position of the U.S. chemical industry in the global economy. The American Chemical Distribution Association (ACD) also expressed support for the Supreme Court’s decision. Eric Bayer, president of ACD, noted that its members are mostly small businesses that have been struggling to maintain the import and delivery of essential chemicals amid the cost burdens and uncertainties caused by tariffs, and hopes that the ruling will ultimately improve policy clarity. Jane Klein of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA)** emphasized that its members operate in a complex global market and rely on consistent trade policies to plan for long-term investments. They still have doubts about how the Supreme Court’s decision will be implemented and what the final form of the new tariffs will be. However, the tariff disputes regarding the *** government are far from over. ***The government stated that during the 150-day temporary tariff period, it will initiate new investigations under Sections 301 and 232 of the Trade Act of 1974 to pave the way for more permanent tariff measures. Finance Minister Scott Bessent said the new measures are a “temporary transition” aimed at maintaining fiscal revenue flows while preparing for a more permanent tariff scheme. Economists, on the other hand, are skeptical about the legal basis for the new tariffs. Kita Gopinath, former First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, stated that the United States does not have any \"fundamental international payment problems\", and 150-day tariffs will not help to reduce the trade deficit on a sustainable basis. Former U.S. Trade Representative Jennifer Holman said it is “not clear” whether the conditions under Section 122 of the Competition Act of 1974 are met.