The Vision Council Invites Industry to Comment on Additional Tariffs on Goods from China

As reported by EB, a fourth list of tariff numbers (which includes optical products such as lenses, frames, etc.) subject to special China 301 custom duties could go into effect by the end of June. The Vision Council is inviting members to record their opposition to the move by submitting comments before the U.S. trade office.
Last week, more than 200 Vision Council members participated in town-hall-style conference calls hosted by The Vision Council to receive updates on the ever-evolving—and escalating—trade war with China and how it will impact pricing on the many optical goods manufactured in China.
The Vision Council will participate in the notice and comment process by submitting its own comments and arguments against the proposed increased tariffs. It is also trying to be heard in the public hearing on the tariff increases. According to Vision Council reps on the conference calls, its primary talking point will relate to the medical benefits of the products associated with these tariffs.
The Vision Council is inviting all manufacturers of optical goods and industry members to submit their own comments to the U.S trade office prior to June 17. Anyone interested can do so here.
Deadline for filing comments is June 17.
The fourth list of products being considered for increased tariffs include just about everything associated with eyewear that originates in China. That includes lenses, frames, sunwear, readers. Previous lists of tariffs included a small portion of optical products, such as eyewear cases and certain ophthalmic testing devices.
After the Administration receives the comments and testimony, it will review and decide on the final list of tariff numbers for the additional duties. However, it is expected that few changes will be made to the proposed list. The rate of the additional duty is to be determined at that time, as well, with an estimated 25% or less increase to be put into effect.
Read EB’s past reporting of this issue here.
—Susan Tarrant