Example collocations logo

Tariffs in sentence

1238 examples of Tariffs in a sentence

If the tariffs really are about national security, they must be placed on imports mainly from close allies like Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the EU.
So if the US were to impose steel tariffs only on some countries, those countries’ steel exporters could send their products to US allies, which could then increase their exports to the US.
This means that, if the US exempts its allies from tariffs, it would also need some reassurance that those allies’ exports to the US will not skyrocket.
It has threatened to impose countervailing measures if the US follows through with its tariffs.
But these measures might not be legitimate, if a WTO panel finds that the US has the right to determine that its national security justifies steel tariffs.
For the exporting country, they represent an attractive alternative to tariffs.
Tariffs offer the prospect of some additional revenue to the importing country, though precisely how much would depend on the extent to which imports fall.
Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on other NATO members, citing national security concerns, of all things.
After all, countries that scrap tariffs among themselves trade more and often raise their economic grow rates as a result.
In manufacturing, it deters poor countries from moving up the value chain as tariffs on their exports increase with the degree of processing.
Punitive tariffs or other crude economic measures taken by US trading partners could then precipitate a trade war – the last thing the world economy needs right now.
Meanwhile, rich countries’ agricultural subsidies and tariffs have undoubtedly undermined food production in developing countries.
However, cutting farm subsidies will increase food prices, at least initially, while reducing agricultural tariffs alone will not necessarily lead to an increase in food production in poor countries without complementary support.
But even if tariffs and quotas are progressively reduced, trade flows may remain low if other trade costs remain high.
It would be a tragic error to forget about them because of technicalities over funds, quotas, or tariffs.
He then pointed out that a GST is critical to enabling India, like the United States, to reap the benefits of its continent-size domestic market, as it would replace the “stifling hodgepodge of local taxes” that amount to “internal tariffs on the movement of goods.”
It also contributed to protectionism at home, reflected in the new US steel tariffs.
For example, we should reevaluate the current system for deciding trade agreements, which have become more about regulatory and investment issues than about eliminating import tariffs or other import barriers.
A similar mechanism underpins “optimum tariffs,” whereby a large country manipulates its terms of trade by placing restrictions on its imports.
Finally, the EU insists that Russia abolish planned prohibitive export tariffs on lumber.
The Section 301 report recommends curbing this behavior by imposing 25% tariffs on a number of Chinese exports – worth a total value of about $50 billion – that allegedly benefit from these policies.
The Trump administration has just followed through on this recommendation, unleashing another round of tariffs on China – and prompting immediate retaliation.
Trump has cited national security concerns in order to justify his tariffs – including the hefty tariffs on steel and aluminum (automotive imports may be next) that he has imposed.
Yet tariffs are not the answer.
In fact, even tariffs targeting only Chinese products that benefit from the government’s mercantilist practices are counterproductive, because they effectively tax the US companies they are supposed to defend.
The reason lies in today’s complex global supply chains.Many of China’s exports targeted by the Trump administration’s tariffs are produced by “foreign-funded enterprises,” in China, and US and other non-Chinese companies are major investors.
It also means that US businesses operating in China are vital links and major beneficiaries of the very supply chains that will be disrupted by Trump’s tariffs.So if tariffs cannot counter China’s violations of US and international trade law, what can?
Many of China’s exports targeted by the Trump administration’s tariffs are produced by “foreign-funded enterprises,” in China, and US and other non-Chinese companies are major investors.
It also means that US businesses operating in China are vital links and major beneficiaries of the very supply chains that will be disrupted by Trump’s tariffs.
So if tariffs cannot counter China’s violations of US and international trade law, what can?
BackNext