National Association of Beverage Importers President Robert M. Tobiassen highlighted the ever-growing number of signatories to statements opposing these punitive tariffs on unrelated products since before the imposition of the Airbus dispute tariffs in October 2019, and the steel and aluminum tariffs in June 2018.
“The realization of the widespread harm done to economies, jobs, consumers, and all levels of the manufacture, trade, import, distribution, and retail of a vast number of products and commodities has become readily apparent,” said Tobiassen and “the repositioning of the U.S. trade pillars to include a worker-centric theme to protect and create jobs is dead-on consistent with removing the tariffs on unrelated sectors.” Moreover, NABI pointedly noted in its letter, dated July 7, 2020, on proposed tariffs in the French Digital Services Tax (DST) investigation:
“There are multiple principles and precedents in trade disputes for limiting trade remedies to the same sector as that of the underlying violation, nullification, or impartment was found. These include Article 22.3 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding and the Trade Act of 1974 requirement that a retaliation list include reciprocal goods. The Trade Act of 1974, 19 USC 2426(b)(2)(F), also focuses on reciprocal goods. More specific to wine, we note that the World Wine Trade Group of which the United States is a member and the U.S delegation is headed by a USTR agricultural official has adopted a position that wine should be not targeted for retaliation in a trade dispute involving products other than wine.”
“Simply put” said Tobiassen “what we are asking for is consistent with international agreements and U.S. trade laws.” He added “if 113 organizations on both sides of the pond can reach agreement on a basic principle of appropriate trade sanctions, then why should it be that hard for the United States, the European Commission, and the 27 Member States of the EU to conclude the same?”