SHEIN TRIES TO CLEAR NAME: If you’re familiar with Shein, chances are you’re either a Zoomer fashionista — or a Washington China hawk. The Chinese-founded firm has boomed in recent years by selling a wide variety of skirts, blouses and shirts at remarkably low prices — often under $10. It reaches many of its consumers on TikTok, where influencers tout their cheap-but-chic outfits, giving the firm direct access to America’s emerging consumer generation. But in Washington, the firm has been assailed by allegations that its clothes are made with the forced labor of Chinese Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region — currently subject to a trade blockade — and that its business model intentionally evades American tariffs. Now, the e-commerce giant is going on the offensive. The firm has hired Washington lobbyists for the first time and is talking up its new status as a Singapore-based company after relocating its headquarters there from Nanjing. And its executives are offering previously unreported evidence to the press that they say clears the firm of human rights violations related to its cotton supply. “We are committed to respecting human rights and adhering to local laws in each market we operate in,” said Peter Pernot-Day, Shein’s head of strategy and corporate affairs. Shein’s evidence: Between June 2022 and the beginning of this year, Shein says it had nearly 2,000 separate tests run on its yarn, fabric and finished products — from all 60 of the mills that supply its cotton. Those tests revealed that nearly 98 percent of its cotton did not come from Xinjiang or other regions blocked under U.S. law — while 2.1 percent was found to be sourced from the northwest Chinese region or other “unapproved” places. Production of those products was halted and “removed from sale,” a spokesperson said. Cotton comprises only about 4 percent of Shein’s clothing, but the company says its other fabrics, like polyester, aren’t from Xinjiang or other unapproved regions. Third party testers who also work with the U.S. government say Shein actually performs better than many of its fashion industry peers. But its critics are unconvinced, and say the company will need to do more to clear its name in the months to come. More on those concerns and the company’s new lobbying campaign is here. CAN MANUFACTURERS FIGHT NEW DUTY ACTION: Can manufacturers are leading an effort to stop the Commerce Department from imposing double- and triple-digit duties on more than $1 billion worth of imported tin mill steel products from eight countries. The proposed duties “would raise the cost of canned foods and everyday household products by up to $0.58 per can according to a study by the Consumer Brands Association,” the Can Manufacturers Institute and coalition partners said in a letter to President Joe Biden and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. “Considering that 25 billion cans are sold in the U.S. each year, that places approximately $14 billion of extra costs on consumers.” The case involves Cleveland-Cliffs, whose boss, Lourenco Goncalves, is the new chairman of the American Iron and Steel Institute, the industry’s trade association. Goncalves also has been pushing the Commerce Department to impose new duties on certain grain-oriented electrical steel products, namely cores and laminations, used to make transformers. Cleveland-Cliffs did not respond Friday to a request for comment. But Roy Houseman, legislative director at the United Steelworkers union, forcefully insisted that "duties on tin mill products are essential to stabilizing the domestic market, restoring fair prices and protecting good union jobs.” WYDEN DISSATISFIED WITH ADMIN RESPONSE: Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) isn’t keen on the letter he received last week from Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, which arrived in response to concerns committee members raised six months earlier about the administration’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. “We asked the administration to work with Congress to arrive at a common understanding of how agreements like the IPEF will be approved,” Wyden said in a statement. “This letter neither recognizes Congress’s Constitutional authority, nor attempts to achieve a common understanding on how to move an agreement like the IPEF forward.” That’s been a sore spot for Congress throughout the Biden administration. USTR and Commerce have shunned traditional free trade agreements in favor of executive-level frameworks and arrangements — and have determined such deals do not need to go before lawmakers for a vote. Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed frustration that their constitutional powers over trade are being undercut as a result, though it’s not clear lawmakers have the ability or the political will to take any action. (The top Republican on Senate Finance, Mike Crapo(R-Idaho), declined to comment on the latest letter.) In the letter last week, Raimondo and Tai defended their legal authority to negotiate deals like IPEF without having to bring them before Congress. But they also committed to sharing negotiating text with lawmakers and providing more detailed briefings, two longstanding complaints from the Hill. METAL EMISSIONS PROBE IN THE WORKS: Tai is planning to request an investigation into the greenhouse gas emissions of American-made steel and aluminum products, according to a draft letter obtained by POLITICO. In the draft letter, Tai calls on the U.S. International Trade Commission to collect data from U.S.-based steel and aluminum producers that would “help to inform discussions” with the European Union over a global arrangement intended to reduce the carbon intensity and excess production of steel and aluminum. The proposed ITC investigation, under Section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930, would not be due to USTR until December 2024, per the draft letter. It’s not clear how it would affect the timeline for the EU negotiations, which both sides have said are on track to be completed by October. USTR declined to comment. Steven has more for Pros. CHINA HAWKS URGE ACTION AFTER MICRON BAN: House China hawks are urging the Biden administration to strike back at China for imposing new trade restrictions on the U.S. chip firm Micron. Beijing said last month that it would block Chinese firms from purchasing Micron chips for critical infrastructure — a response to Washington’s own trade restrictions on Chinese chips. Biden’s team has said there’s no true security threat to justify China’s blockade — just as Beijing claimed in response to the American restrictions. Now, the leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Select Committee on China are asking the administration to ensure that other nations can’t help Beijing enforce its ban. “We must quickly work with Japan and South Korea to ensure Japanese and South Korean companies do not undercut Micron by taking its sales that were lost to the PRC’s unjustifiable boycott,” the two chairs wrote. “Permitting South Korean companies such as Samsung and SK Hynix to replace Micron’s market share – while they at the same time receive specific carve outs from implementing regulations for the CHIPS Act and exemptions from certain export controls to the PRC – would send a dangerous signal to the PRC government and weaken our close alliance with South Korea.”
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment