Bill Overview
Title: To provide for retroactive application of Generalized System of Preferences for the period after December 31, 2020, and before September 1, 2022.
Description: This bill retroactively applies the Generalized System of Preferences (a U.S. trade preference program that provides duty-free access to imports on products from certain developing countries) for the period after December 31, 2020, and before September 1, 2022. These covered articles shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though entry occurred on December 31, 2020. A request for liquidation or reliquidation must be filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and such request must contain sufficient information for CBP to locate the entry or, if the entry cannot be located, reconstruct the entry. Any amounts owed by the United States pursuant to liquidation or reliquidation of an entry of a covered article shall be paid without interest.
Sponsors: Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-23]
Target Audience
Population: Exporters, importers, and workers involved in trade under the GSP program
Estimated Size: 300000
- The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is designed to support economic development by providing preferential duty-free entry for products from designated beneficiary countries.
- This bill retroactively impacts imports from developing countries that rely on GSP to access U.S. markets, meaning those countries and their exporters are directly impacted by the duty-free status restoration.
- Retroactive benefits would alleviate potential financial burdens on importers who would have paid duties during the lapse period.
- Importing firms in the U.S. are directly impacted as they will benefit from refunds of duties if they had imported goods under the lapse period assuming they go through the process of requesting liquidation or reliquidation.
- The overall impact will reach employees and stakeholders in various sectors involved in the trade of GSP eligible goods, including those in agriculture, textiles, and raw commodities.
Reasoning
- To ensure we accurately capture the impact of this policy, we need a sample that includes small business owners, employees in import-dependent sectors, trade professionals, and ordinary consumers. This allows us to observe variations in impact across different affected parties.
- Approximately 3,000 to 5,000 companies in the U.S. are involved in GSP-related imports. Therefore, simulating interviews with a few representative individuals from these companies gives us insights into their experiences and perspectives.
- Considering the policy budget (a total of $300,000,000 USD over the first year and 10 years), we must keep the commonness of the specific impacts in balance. Some groups will feel significant changes, while others will not notice any.
- We make sure to include individuals who may not directly benefit but are indirectly impacted, such as consumers who might see slight price changes in goods.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The temporary suspension of GSP was a big hit to my business. I had to pay duties I hadn't budgeted for.
- This policy could help recover some of the losses incurred from the duties paid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Customs Broker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be a surge in demand for my services, which is positive for my career.
- The policy will create additional workload temporarily, but overall, it's positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Logistics Coordinator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will ease financial burdens on our import operations. That might mean more stable hours for me.
- However, my direct use of this policy is limited to the stability it offers my employer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retail Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in costs due to this policy could result in better store pricing for customers.
- It won't massively affect my daily work, but it's good for the business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Agriculture Export Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will benefit firms I consult for, which may see increased business activity.
- Personally, I might not feel much change unless there's a significant shift in client demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Economist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy alleviates unnecessary costs for import businesses and enhances trade relations.
- For my advisory role, it brings a sense of relief to clients, but doesn't change my personal workload significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Owner of a Logistics Firm (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy directly impacts our operations by potentially reducing overall handling fees.
- The ripple effect could enhance long-term client relationships if they remain in business due to cost savings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Import/Export Compliance Officer (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The implementation of this policy reduces compliance complexities we've faced.
- It could mean more predictable workflows for me, simplifying my role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Consumer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not see a direct change in pricing immediately, but over time prices might stabilize or drop slightly.
- It's mainly a background policy unless it translates to directly lower retail prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reimplementation of GSP seems sensible, promoting fair trade practices.
- Although I'm retired, I appreciate efforts to stabilize trade which I spent a career in.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The retroactive policy primarily affects importers who act on reliquidation requests submitted timely.
- The cost of administrative processing and refund logistics could strain CBP resources temporarily.
- Potential for increased economic activities in both the U.S. and beneficiary countries by restoring GSP benefits.