Import Duties to Be Paid in U.S. to Solve Immigration and Bring Back Manufacturing. Really?

04 June 2019 Dashboard Insights Blog
Authors: Alejandro Nemo Gomez Strozzi Marcos Carrasco Menchaca

Due to what was firstly characterized as an illegal immigration crisis, and then as a measure to force companies to leave Mexico and return to the U.S., the Trump administration announced that starting June 10, 2019, it plans to impose 5% tariffs on ALL goods imported from Mexico; tariffs are then set to increase to 10% on July 1, 15% on August 1, 20% on September 1, and to 25% on October 1, 2019.  Decades-long chains of production under NAFTA, particularly with complex manufacturing scenarios such as in the auto industry, cannot be relocated within several months, or even years. 

Dollar-wise, motor vehicles, auto parts and trucks represent three of the four largest imports from Mexico (data processing machines being the remaining one), so the eventual impact in the auto sector would be enormous. Most importantly, we may be a handful of days away (possibly as early as June 10, 2019) from having predictability fly out of the window in the NAFTA / USMCA bloc, though the disruption on sophisticated chains of production should be measured on a case-by-case basis.

In the international trade arena, it is common knowledge that import duties are paid by importers, not the exporting country. Period. Thus, U.S. businesses and shortly thereafter U.S. consumers will start feeling the heat firstly, particularly when roughly 40% of the value of a Mexican-made automobile consists of U.S.-made intermediate materials that cross the border up to eight times until they climbed all the way up to a functioning car. So this is a negative "triple dipping" as the new tariffs would discourage cost-effective imports from a reliable trading partner and, in doing so, they would be affecting U.S. exports that went into Mexico a number of times, as well as increase costs of production in U.S. soil.

The full discretion with which the U.S. administration allowed President Trump to announce these tariffs gives room for the possibility of the measure being modified or somehow diluted, particularly in light of the across-the-board opposition from both Congress and the private sector. On the opposite side, the President is set to announce the launch of his reelection campaign on June 18, 2019. The campaign announcement may put pressure on him to keep his word on two contentious issues dear to his administration: trade and immigration.

Regarding Congressional approval of USMCA, Mme. Speaker Pelosi has already said that the announced tariffs are not wise trade policy and the President is again sowing chaos over the border; further, that the President took a "premature" action to advance the Agreement by starting the clock to submit the deal to Congress within 30 days, which would then trigger the House vote on it in 60 days. South-wise and under what is seen as conciliatory gesture right after the 5% tariffs announcement, the Mexican President said he would continue his efforts to pass the USMCA in the Senate; Canada does not (yet?) have a dog in this fight. Therefore, we are basically in the same predicament, with U.S. politics being the largest hurdle to clear in USMCA´s final approval (which we still believe will eventually occur).

Wow, the aforementioned is truly a rattle of the (NAFTA-bloc trade) cage. Companies shall revise the implications this might bring to their particular operations. Please try to answer the following questions:

  1. Do contracts with your clients and suppliers foresee what to do in an abrupt increase in costs, i.e. tariffs?
  2. Is providing a discount or credit to neutralize the 5% (or 10%, and so on) duty increase feasible, and would it have any effect on the seller or buyer´s tax or Customs situation?
  3. Can your company legally agree to split the payment of the incoming new tariffs?
  4. Does Mexico have any venues to neutralize the extra cost of tariffs?
  5. Is what the U.S. President did is even legal, and would it pass muster in U.S. Courts?
  6. What is Mexico planning to do, bring back "carousel" retaliatory tariffs?
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ