Photo of Robert Holleyman

Robert Holleyman

Subscribe to Robert Holleyman's Posts
Contact: Read more about Robert Holleyman

On October 4, 2021, United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) detailing the Biden Administration’s new strategy for managing U.S.-China trade relations. Tai announced that the USTR will restart a targeted tariff exclusion process for Section 301 duties. Today (October 6) the USTR published a request for comments regarding possible reinstatement of certain exclusions to the Section 301 tariffs visible here. The exclusion process covers 549 products for which the prior Administration granted exclusion extensions, most of which expired on December 31, 2020.  See here for the list of covered products   The USTR is seeking public comments on whether or not to further extend the exclusion from 301 tariffs on these products.  The comment period opens October 12 and closes December 1 and 11:59 PM EST and can be accessed here.

The factors the USTR will consider in deciding whether or not to extend exclusions are similar to those considered in the prior Administration, including:

  1. whether the particular product is available in the United States or other countries;
  2. how changes in the global supply chain since September 2018 or any other relevant industry developments have impacted product availability;
  3. the efforts the importers or U.S. purchases have undertaken since September 2018 to source the product from the U.S. or other countries; and
  4. domestic capacity for production in the United States.

The USTR is also considering additional criteria for granting exclusions, such as whether or not reinstating the exclusion will impact or result in severe economic harm to the commenter or to other U.S. interests, such as small businesses, employment, manufacturing, or critical supply chains. It remains to be seen if other criteria, possibly relevant to broader administration goals such as promoting efforts to advance climate change, might also be considered.

If the USTR reinstates exclusions, then such exclusions would be reinstated retroactively. Importers may seek 301 duty refunds on all subject entries that are not “liquidated” by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the time the importer makes a claim for a refund with CBP.  CBP typically liquidates an entry 314 days after entry, so the sooner importers file for and receive an exclusion extension the greater the potential duty refunds.
Continue Reading U.S.-China Trade: USTR Restarts Tariff Exclusion Process for Section 301 Duties

On August 20, 2021, China’s national legislature passed the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”), which will become effective on November 1, 2021. As China’s first comprehensive system for protecting personal information, the PIPL is an extension of the personal information and privacy rights enshrined in China’s Civil Code, and also a crucial element of a set of recent laws in China that seek to strengthen data security and privacy. Among other things, the PIPL sets out general rules for processing and cross-border transfer of personal information. A number of provisions, notably various obligations imposed on data processors, restrictions on cross-border transfer, and hefty fines, will have significant impact on multinational corporations’ HR activities, including recruitment, performance monitoring, cross-border transfers, compliance investigations, termination of employment relationships, and background checks.

This alert will highlight specifically how the PIPL will apply to workplace scenarios in China and provide suggestions to help ensure data privacy compliance for multinational corporations’ China labor and employment operations.

Employee Consent and Exceptions to Consent

Under Article 4 of the PIPL, “personal information” is defined broadly as information related to natural persons recorded electronically or by other means that has been used or can be used to identify such natural persons, excluding information that has been anonymized. Specific types of personal information have been noted for additional protection under Article 28 of the PIPL as “sensitive personal information”. Sensitive personal information is defined under the law as personal information that is likely to result in damage to the personal dignity, physical wellbeing or property of any natural person, and includes, among others, information such as biometric identification, religious belief, special identity, medical health, financial account, physical location tracking and whereabouts, and personal information of those under the age of 14.
Continue Reading Employee Personal Information Protection in China – Are You Up to Speed?

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) came into force on July 1, 2020. Included in the USMCA are stronger labor provisions Congressional Democrats demanded, with the support of the Trump Administration, that were approved on a bipartisan basis during consideration of the USMCA implementing legislation in late 2019. The stronger labor provisions helped secure the support…

A proposed law issued by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 21, 2020, the draft Personal Information Protection Law, seeks to impose restrictions on entities and individuals, including those operating outside of China, that collect and process personal data and sensitive information on subjects in China. The proposed law also provides for penalties…

Global Trade Talks is a podcast that shares brief perspectives on key global issues on international trade, current events, business, law and public policy as they impact our lives.

In the latest episode, hosts Nicole Simonian and Ambassador Robert Holleyman interview Fred Hochberg, former Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. …

At 9:30 a.m. Central European Time, privacy professionals around the world were refreshing their browsers to read the long-awaited judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) principally addressing the viability of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (Privacy Shield) as means to transfer personal data from the European Union (EU) to the United States (U.S.).

When the judgment arrived, it landed with a bang: though the CJEU upheld the use of SCCs, it invalidated the Privacy Shield, the well-known mechanism to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S.  The decision also cast doubt on the viability of other options, including SCCs, for making transatlantic transfers.

The foundation of this decision and previous decisions affirming challenges to U.S. privacy practices is that the protection of personal data is a fundamental right in the EU, akin to a constitutional right in the U.S.  The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enshrined these fundamental rights and established uniform data protection standards across the EU designed to protect the personal data of EU-based individuals.…

Continue Reading Privacy Shield Invalidated: EU Data Transfers to the U.S. under Siege (again…)

Companies in the online marketplace have been paying close attention to Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) in recent weeks and months. As noted in our previous client alert, CDA Section 230 “is a powerful law that provides websites, blogs, and social networks that host third-party speech with liability…