July - August 2023 Market Update
The U.S. economy expanded at a faster clip than had been expected in the second quarter, growing at an annualized rate of 2.4 percent even amid elevated inflation and rising interest rates.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the increase in gross domestic product (GDP) “reflected increases in consumer spending, nonresidential fixed investment, state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by decreases in exports and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.”
The economy grew at a 2 percent rate during the first quarter.
Year-over-year inflation has declined each month since June 2022, when it hit 9.1 percent, which has, perhaps, encouraged spending and economic expansion. During Q2, inflation was at 4.9 percent in April, 4.1 percent in May and 3 percent in June.
The most recent reading is, for the first time since early 2021, nearing the Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate of 2 percent. Notwithstanding the announcement by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the sharply reduced inflation rate on July 12, the Fed two weeks later increased interest rates another quarter-point to put the target range for the Federal Funds Rate at 5.25 to 5.5 percent. A month earlier, the central bank had kept rates unchanged after increasing them at 10 consecutive meetings.
“Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace,” the Federal Reserve said in announcing the July increase. “Job gains have been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation remains elevated. The U.S. banking system is sound and resilient. Tighter credit conditions for households and businesses are likely to weigh on economic activity, hiring, and inflation. The extent of these effects remains uncertain.”
The Fed may have been emboldened to return to aggressive action against inflation by optimistic revisions that its staff made to economic projections. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said following the rate hike announcement that “the staff now has a noticeable slowdown in growth starting later this year in the forecast, but given the resilience of the economy recently, they are no longer forecasting a recession.”
Some other analysts also see the “soft landing” for the economy that Powell and the Fed have sought as becoming more likely. CNBC reported that Goldman Sachs, for example, has reduced what it sees as the likelihood of a recession within the next year to 20 percent, with the firm’s chief economist stating in a report that “recent data have reinforced our confidence that bringing inflation down to an acceptable level will not require a recession.” Similarly, Bank of America, also according to CNBC, stated in a recent report, “What’s out: Mild recession. What’s in: Soft landing, no recession.”
Recession predictions have become harder to maintain with job growth continuing to be healthy each month and the unemployment hovering around the lowest it has been since 1969. In July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy added 187,000 jobs – with especially notable gains in health care, social assistance, financial activities and wholesale trade – putting the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent.
An additional wild card that could affect the nation’s economy is the move by Fitch on Aug. 1 to downgrade the United States’ credit rating from AAA (the highest rating) to AA+ because of “a steady deterioration in standards of governance over the last 20 years.” Recent events contributing to the decision, according to CNN, included this year’s debt ceiling brinkmanship and the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol that interrupted Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential vote results from the Electoral College.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen criticized the downgrade, saying it is “arbitrary and based on outdated data.”
Stocks fell for three straight days following Fitch’s announcement, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing at 35,065.62 on Aug. 4, up 5.8 percent on the year. The S&P 500 Index ended Aug. 4 at 4,478.03, for a year-to-date gain of 16.6 percent.
The dollar, at least in the short term, appeared to be largely unaffected by the downgrade. On Aug. 4, it was trading at 0.91 euros, 0.78 pounds, 141.79 yen and 7.17 yuan, very close to the exchange rates on the day before the announcement.
High interest rates continue to discourage existing home sales, with sales dipping 3.3 percent from May to June, and year-over-year sales falling 18.9 percent, according to the National Association of Realtors.
“The first half of the year was a downer for sure with sales lower by 23 percent,” the association’s chief economist said. “Fewer Americans were on the move despite the usual life-changing circumstances. The pent-up demand will surely be realized soon, especially if mortgage rates and inventory move favorably.”
Housing starts, meanwhile, dipped 8 percent from May to June and were down 8.1 percent from a year earlier, the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development reported.
Confidence in the manufacturing sector has increased slightly but it remains low. The Institute for Supply Management’s Purchasing Managers Index in July recorded its first gain in three months, but it is still below the thresholds indicating growth in the sector and expansion in the overall economy.
Only two of the 16 industries surveyed reported growth in July: petroleum & coal products and furniture & related products.
“Demand remains weak but marginally better compared to June, production slowed due to lack of work, and suppliers continue to have capacity,” the chair of the institute’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee said. “There are signs of more employment reduction actions in the near term to better match production output.
Consumer confidence, however, showed big gains in July. The Index of Consumer Sentiment from the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers improved by 11.2 percent from June and by 39 percent from July 2022. The surveys director said the improvements are “largely attributable to the continued slowdown in inflation along with stability in labor markets.”
The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index, meanwhile, went up by more than 6 percent to reach its highest level since July 2021.
“Expectations for the next six months improved materially, reflecting greater confidence about future business conditions and job availability,” the organization’s chief economist said. “This likely reveals consumers’ belief that labor market conditions will remain favorable.”
With consumer spending accounting for about 70 percent of the nation’s economic activity, it is likely that pent-up demand that accumulated from 2020 to 2022 is significantly contributing to the economy’s resilience. When that softens, though, the economy could be more vulnerable to other factors, such as the war in Europe, continued interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve, potential unrest related to the 2024 presidential election, and any number of events in China.
U.S., Mexico Officials Discuss Steel, Aluminum Trade
Officials from the United States and Mexico discussed issues related to the steel and aluminum trade in July.
In February, a bipartisan group of 13 senators urged the Biden administration “to take action to stem the unsustainable surge of Mexican steel imports,” possibly by imposing quotas.
The matter was on the agenda during a July 6 meeting between U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Mexico’s Secretary of Economy, Raquel Buenrostro, but no immediate resolution emerged.
“Ambassador Tai and Secretary Buenrostro also discussed the importance of addressing the recent surge of imports of steel and aluminum products, and agreed to have their teams intensify their engagement,” according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “Ambassador Tai stressed the importance of Mexico enhancing its monitoring of its steel and aluminum exports to the United States in accordance with the 2019 Joint Statement by the United States and Mexico on Section 232 Duties on Steel and Aluminum, and ensuring greater transparency with regards to Mexico’s steel and aluminum imports from third countries.”
U.S.-E.U. Negotiations on Sustainable Agreement Sputter Ahead of October Deadline
The United States and the European Union have reportedly reached an impasse in discussions regarding the steel and aluminum trade.
Tariffs on E.U. metals imposed by the Trump administration – and retaliatory measures implemented by Europe – have been lifted while the two sides negotiate a trade deal, but if an agreement is not reached by the end of October, the levies and trade restrictions on both sides of the Atlantic are set to be reinstituted.
The two sides have been seeking to develop a framework called the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum, under which new tariffs would be imposed on imports of metals whose production does not meet carbon emissions standards, but negotiators have so far not been able to find common ground on the details. The U.K.-based Financial Times reported on June 28 that “the EU believes the US’s proposed solution is likely to breach World Trade Organization rules because it discriminates in favour of domestic producers, according to officials with knowledge of the situation.”
A July 28 report from JD Supra, meanwhile, explained that there are still “high obstacles to success, including demands by the U.S. that its aluminum and steel products be excluded from the EU’s planned carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was recently approved by EU lawmakers and will impose charges on imports of steel, aluminum, and other carbon-heavy products starting in 2026.”
The Global Arrangement appears to have been designed with China in mind, particularly since it would only allow countries to join who “commit to not overproduce steel and aluminum.”
Bloomberg on Aug. 1 reported that, “Even though both sides insist that Oct. 31 is a hard deadline, tangible progress on curbing overcapacity may be significant enough to convince the US and EU to extend talks past that date without triggering the tariffs, said some of the people [familiar with the discussions], who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.”
U.S., India Reach Agreement; Section 232 Tariffs to Remain in Place
The United States and India have settled their dispute over Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, with the tariffs to remain in effect.
While India agreed to remove retaliatory tariffs that it imposed in response to the Section 232 levies, the agreement “maintains the integrity of the U.S. Section 232 measures,” according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. This, though, was one of six World Trade Organization disputes that were resolved as a package. One of the additional cases involved countervailing duties on hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India.
“We have decided to resolve long-pending trade-related issues and make a new beginning,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said following a White House meeting with President Joe Biden.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said that the agreement “represents the culmination of intensified bilateral engagement over the last two years.”
CUSTOMS CORNER
Procedures for Retroactive Refunds of Section 232 Duties Pursuant to Exclusions
Section 232 exclusion requests are administered and granted by the Commerce Department, but applied to specific imports by US Customs and Border Protection(CBP). Granted exclusions are ordinarily effective on entries filed on or after the date the request was filed, not the date it was issued. This occasionally results in a problem when a request remains pending, or in a correction process, with Commerce at the time the products are imported. Because a granted exclusion must exist in order for products to be exempted from otherwise applicable Section 232 duties, the Section 232 duties will be applied on entry.
Retroactive refunds of Section232 duties can be secured where this occurs so long as the appropriate Customs procedures are followed. Where an exclusion request is granted before the liquidation of an entry has become final, importers can file a Post Summary Correction (PSC) with the appropriate exclusion information. If liquidation is expected to occur before Commerce acts on a request, importers can request extension of liquidation, initially for a one year period, which may be extended up to three years, while waiting for the Commerce decision. If favorable the PSC procedure can then be used.
If an entry is liquidated by CBP before an exclusion is granted, importers can utilize the Protest procedure to supply the necessary exclusion information, so long as the Protest is filed within the 180 day period allowed. Even if the decision by Commerce has not been issued at the time a Protest is filed, a timely Protest keeps the issue alive. CBP described these procedures, which also apply to Section 301 duties, in Cargo Systems Messaging Service CSMS #42566154 – Section 232 and Section 301 – Extensions Requests, PSCs, and Protests, dated May 1, 2020.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/289820a
After filing, an importer could also request that CBP delay action on the Protest pending the Commerce decision. Should CBP nevertheless deny the Protest, an importer could file an appeal of such a denied Protest with the Court of International Trade (CIT) to seek the appropriate refund.
A recent CIT decision reinforces the required use of these procedures. In SXP SCHULZ XTRUDED PRODUCTS LLC, v. UNITED STATES. Slip Op. 23-51, April 19, 2023, due to a series of errors and corrections the final exclusion determination by Commerce was not issued until after the 180 day Protest period had passed for most of the entries involved. The importer argued that because of the improper interim Commerce decisions, it could not have filed a valid Protest until the corrected determination was issued, which occurred after the Protest period had passed. The Court held that under the CBP notice the importer had been advised that a Protest should be filed even where the final Commerce determination was not yet issued, which would have allowed the importer to file for relief with the court under the denied Protest procedures. Because that avenue of relief existed, the importer’s claim under the Court’s residual jurisdiction was inapplicable.
Importers dealing with delayed exclusion request determinations should take care to use the appropriate avenues for relief available or risk loss of refund opportunities.
Steven W. Baker
AMSCI Customs Committee Chair
swbaker@swbakerlaw.com