Example collocations logo

Tariffs in sentence

1238 examples of Tariffs in a sentence

On average, tariffs applied on developing countries’ exports could rise from 3% to 37%.
But whereas average tariffs affecting countries like Nigeria and Zambia probably would not go above 10%, those against Mexico could reach as high as 60%.
Likewise, countries like Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Turkey could face average tariffs of 40-50%.
What this practice entails is that countries negotiate lower tariffs on some types of products but not on others.
Such agreements, which often dismantle not only tariffs but other regulatory barriers, may appear unassailable.
Given the worrying escalation of Trump’s import tariffs and the retaliatory measures being pursued by China, the European Union, and others, one should not be surprised if the weakening of global trade persists.
That said, one also should not assume that falling trade numbers are a direct result of tariffs.
Obviously, if these two economic giants are going to start trading blows with tit-for-tat tariffs, both will lose – and so will the world economy.
Historically, trade systems have ranged from rather open to severely restricted by rules, tariffs, or non-tariff barriers, driven by shifts in the relative strength of liberalizing or protectionist economic and political forces.
Through a succession of lengthy and difficult global negotiations – the so-called “GATT rounds” – tariffs were steadily lowered for an increasing variety of goods.
To be sure, because tariffs in the TPP member countries are already low (with some exceptions, such as Canada’s tariffs on dairy products and Japan’s on beef), the net benefit of eliminating them would be modest (except for a few items that are very sensitive to small price changes).
Contrary to many cynical predictions, Obama and his counterparts successfully fulfilled this commitment, avoiding a repeat of the debacle caused in the 1930s by America’s introduction of import tariffs.
There was some lowering of agricultural and other tariffs by the EU.
But can new trade tariffs really offer a way out of the current situation, in which everyone – Europe, China, the photovoltaic (PV) industry, and the environment – stands to lose?
Until recently, Europe was encouraging the installation of solar panels by guaranteeing feed-in tariffs for the electricity generated, while China provided strong incentives to stimulate the growth of its PV industry.
Trade-distorting subsidies, high import tariffs, and export restrictions act as sand in the gears of the transmission belt and make it more difficult and expensive to bring food to the market – and thus to the family table.
A Doha agreement would also bring down tariffs, although with certain “flexibilities,” thereby increasing consumers’ access to food.
Now that they are on the receiving end of US tariffs, Chinese policymakers have three options.
It could set its own tariffs higher than those of the US, apply them to a larger range (and greater dollar value) of US exports, or offset the impact of US tariffs on Chinese exporters by allowing the renminbi to depreciate against the dollar.
This hasn’t been difficult, given that several other major economies are currently facing US tariffs.
Even for a notoriously unpredictable administration, a full and unconditional reversal on tariffs seems out of the question.
That leaves only escalation – a possibility that the Trump administration has already raised by threatening additional tariffs on all imports from China.
Russian leaders publicly stated that if Ukraine signed a free-trade agreement with the EU, it would lose its free-trade deal with Russia, and high tariffs would be imposed on all goods and services.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 – which raised US tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods by as much as 50% – was supposed to protect American farmers and businesses.
The US and China could reach an agreement before Trump’s punitive tariffs go into effect on January 1.
The solution is much less severe than what had been the imminent alternative: EU tariffs on Chinese solar panels were set to rise to 47.6%, as a result of the European Commission’s “finding” that China – whose market share now stands at 80% in Europe – had been “dumping.”
Last fall, the US introduced tariffs of 24-36% against Chinese solar-panel imports, after the Commerce Department determined that China had been “dumping” – which is generally defined as selling at a price below cost – into the American market.
China, citing its own finding of US dumping of polysilicon – a key input in the production of solar panels – into its market, has already retaliated by imposing import tariffs that could exceed 50%.
Simply put, anti-dumping measures, such as the US and EU tariffs against Chinese solar panels, are a means of reducing, not fostering, competition.
On the economic front, that spells the possibility of reciprocal tariffs on US exports to China, as well as potential ramifications for Chinese purchases of Treasuries.
Back