←back to thread

639 points CTOSian | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
zaptheimpaler ◴[] No.45029926[source]
> importers must declare the exact amount of steel, copper, and aluminum in products, with a 100% tariff applied to these materials. This makes little sense—PCBs, for instance, contain copper traces, but the quantity is nearly impossible to estimate.

Wow this administration is f**ing batshit insane. I thought the tariffs would be on raw metals, not anything at all that happens to contain them.

replies(22): >>45029962 #>>45029965 #>>45030034 #>>45030053 #>>45030129 #>>45030340 #>>45030343 #>>45030393 #>>45030421 #>>45030466 #>>45030477 #>>45030502 #>>45030605 #>>45030634 #>>45030776 #>>45030954 #>>45030975 #>>45031125 #>>45031196 #>>45031214 #>>45031243 #>>45034509 #
elbasti ◴[] No.45030605[source]
I manufacture steel/aluminum goods for the US and I have direct experience with these tariffs. Let me explain why it must be this way and how it's actually supposed to work. This is not a defense of the tariffs, just an explanation.

First of all, if you want to use tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing, you must also tax the steel/al content of finished (or intermediate) goods. Otherwise, you put your local producers at a disadvantage, making the tariffs worse.

If you only tariff raw materials, then an american manufacturer has to pay either US steel prices or imported steel + tariff to manufacture, but a company overseas can use the cheaper foreign steel.

So if you want to tax raw materials, then you also want to tax those goods where raw materials are an important part of the cost.

The US has a catalog called the "Harmonized Tariff Schedule" (HTS) which is a catalog of basically everything under the sun [0]. When the steel & AL tariffs were announced, they also published a list of all the HTS codes where the steel/al content would also be taxed.

Last week the US published a revised list of HTS codes to which these tariffs apply, and they added about 400 items to them. For example, the aluminum content of cans is now taxed when it wasn't before.

Flexport has a very cool (and useful!) tariff simulator where you can look up any item and it will tell you if the steel/al content will be subject to these tariffs: https://tariffs.flexport.com

[0]: https://hts.usitc.gov/

replies(7): >>45030665 #>>45030722 #>>45030976 #>>45031340 #>>45031727 #>>45031762 #>>45036151 #
1. deepakg ◴[] No.45031762[source]
Aluminum in beer cans has been subject to aluminum tariffs since April (was 25% initially and was upped to 50%).[^1]

Because they didn't use the right specificity in the announcement (used an 8 digit HTS vs 10 digit), there was some confusion for a few weeks if Beer in glass bottles was subject to it as well.

There is now an FAQ on CBP's website clarifying it is not [^2]. And they've updated to the right specificity in the new lists.

> Is HTS 2203.00.0030, Beer made from malt, In containers each holding not over 4 liters, In glass containers; subject to Section 232 duties? > No.

But yes, effective 18 August, they broadened the list a whole lot more and added things from condensed milk to deodorant to both steel and aluminum lists. An absolute nightmare for FMCG supply chain to have to figure this out.

You can agree or disagree with the current administration's trade policy but hopefully, even the staunchest proponents will admit that the execution has been sub-par. With u-turns (sometimes leaving partner countries fuming because the final published tariffs were not what were negotiated[^3]), lack of clarity and changes that land on Friday night after work hours and go into effect on Monday midnight.

[^1]: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-05884.pdf

[^2]: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summ...

[^3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/business/japan-tariffs-us...

replies(1): >>45032039 #
2. ornornor ◴[] No.45032039[source]
I have to say it’s quite entertaining watching this from not the US.
replies(1): >>45039318 #
3. reciprocity ◴[] No.45039318[source]
It really isn't. It's destructive and short sighted behavior based on incoherent dogmatism over any motivations for thoughtful and more restrained policy decision making. His motivations for any action is based on flattery and ego that stretch the boundaries of multiple universes. It's so crazy how much blatantly unconstitutional stuff he's gotten away with.