Tariff Testimonials

“My concern is regarding the United States Trade Representative’s proposal to increase the duty on goods from China by 10, or possibly 25, percent. If approved, this proposal will damage my business by making bicycles and accessories more expensive for my customers…A 10 percent tariff increase will likely result in an increase of more than $100 million in tariff costs for our industry a 25 percent tariff increase would cost more than $250 million… My business will be faced with limited options to confront what is effectively a 10 percent increase in our production costs. A tariff increase of this magnitude will inevitably be born by the American customer as we are forced to increase prices in order to maintain profitability.”

“The USTR’s proposal to impose a 10-25% tariff increase on products from China, as punishment for its Section 301 findings on unfair technology transfer and intellectual property practices, encompasses a number of seafood products that are harvested by Alaska’s fishermen, bought by seafood processors in Alaska for primary processing in Alaska, then shipped to China for secondary processing before returning to the U.S consumer market… The imported seafood products subject to the USTR’s proposal are worth $2.7 billion, of which roughly one-third is sourced from U.S. origin seafood – most of which is from Alaska – and reprocessed in China as described above. A new tariff increase on these products returning to the U.S. from China would impose significant cost burden on Alaska producers and U.S. consumers, reducing the value and limiting the economic potential of Alaska’s sustainable commercial fisheries.”

“We are a small family owned business that my father, Jimmy Dill, started back in 1998… We are an integral part of a supply chain that creates American Jobs. We rely on truck drivers to deliver our containers. Supply houses to unload, store, and ship our product to manufacturing facilities all across the country… This entire supply chain equals American jobs. The truck driver, the unloading facility, the assembling facility, the installer; it’s all jobs… This is the only job I have had since I graduated from the University of Alabama in 2003. I have a wife and 2 small children that depend on North River Trading Co. I am a lifelong Republican.”

“It is the opinion of Vision Wheel that a 10% or even 25% increase due to the additional tariffs would be substantial enough to change the consumers buying behavior. There would be a portion of consumers that would cease to purchase aftermarket wheels. As a result, this would reduce the total estimated market size. Any company in the aftermarket wheel business could be at risk for bankruptcy or reduced revenues and employee downsizing.”

“Raising the costs of these inputs would damage the competitiveness of our customers’ products in the global market place and would discourage their use. U.S. yarn spinners need access to these products in order to continue to grow and prosper. While harming U.S. producers, tariffs on this product would not advance the Administration’s goal of addressing intellectual property theft or Made in China 2025.”

“If the various HTS codes that cover some of the raw materials we purchase to manufacture our refractories remain on the latest list, we will see a price increase in the raw materials whose origin is China. The raw material tariff will increase the cost for some of our products supplied to the steel mills, aluminum producers and foundries in the USA. This in turn may increase their costs to the US consumer. It is a spiraling cost increase that we hope will be avoided by exempting some HTS codes.”

“The codes listed above if increased by 25% will increase our costs nearly $750,000 annually thereby having a significant impact to our long-term profitability and competitiveness. The proposed tariffs will drive up costs for these hardworking Americans by limiting our ability to provide products at affordable prices. Increased tariffs will affect our ability to continue growing the company by: 1. Being forced to reduce our staffing, many of whom have been with the company for 15+ years. 2. Delaying or cancelling product development launches and marketing efforts. 3. Increased pricing resulting in price points that are no longer affordable by the hard working American worker. 4. Reducing or eliminating employee benefit programs.”

“The profit margins are thin, so the proposed tariffs will be paid entirely by American consumers. It is anticipated that the proposed 25% 301 duty on these items alone will cost the American consumer $100 million or more.2 As these products are designed for the mass market, we strongly believe that some Americans will not be able to afford the additional duties on this product.”

“Imposition of a 25% tariff for these products imported from China will essentially quadruple the existing duties for which TKI was previously seeking relief. The imposition of an additional 25% tariff on the chemicals that TKI imports from China will have a significant negative impact on TKI’s ability to continue to provide American farmers with critical pest control products at a reasonable cost. TKI will have to pass the cost of the proposed tariff onto U.S. farmers. Those farmers, who are already struggling with depressed crop prices as a result of China’s early tariff measures, will have little choice than to attempt to pass their increased costs of production onto the America public in the form of higher priced fruits, nuts, and vegetables.”

“The tariffs will dramatically and unnecessarily increase the cost to produce our products. The products we have identified below as being adversely impacted by the proposed tariffs are not available in the United States we have to import them. With the agricultural economy struggling there is no way we could pass this increase on to growers. U.S. farmers are already suffering from tariffs imposed by China on their harvested crops. The biggest multiplier effect will be on gross margin dollars. There will be less available to pay salaries, benefits and do continued research to develop innovative products for farmers”

“Specifically, our members design and distribute duffle bags, travel bags, sports bags, and sports backpacks of man-made fibers as defined under HTS 4202.92.31 which is included in the proposed list. A 25 percent tariff on these products will adversely impact our members by raising prices and requiring companies to either build new factories or search for alternative production sources. And, even more notably, as explained above, the tariff will directly affect consumers who will experience higher prices and supply shortages. Above all, these tariffs will undoubtedly and immediately raise prices for customers who rely on modestly-priced sporting goods in order to maintain an active, healthy lifestyle… In addition, U.S. commerce also benefits from these products because the administrative operations and research and development facilities are located in the U.S., thereby providing additional employment. The above-mentioned tariffs further threaten these jobs as our members will be forced to either absorb the increased costs caused by the tariffs and face cutbacks in additional investment, essential business activities such as research and development, and employment, or pass the extra costs to consumers.”

“The proposed 25% increase in duties would have an adverse effect on the U.S. workforce. Currently, the portable generator industry employs thousands of American workers. When considered with the indirect and induced employment contribution of these industries, hundreds of thousands of employees are involved in the design, production, sale, and servicing of these products. By raising the costs of portable generators and generator related parts, the additional duties would increase the overall costs, resulting in higher prices and lower sales. This in turn would lead to the loss of existing jobs, as well as future employment opportunities, for U.S. workers along this vital flow of domestic employment across virtually every state.”

“Our business has done the best we can to manage despite the increased costs resulting from the Section 232 tariffs. However, adding additional tariffs on HTSUS would result in catastrophic hardship for our business. Section 301 tariffs applied to HTSUS 8414.80.1685 will impose significant additional costs – in addition to the additional to the costs we are already absorbing due to the Section 232 tariffs. I truly believe that I will lose the business I have worked years to create should these tariffs apply to HTSUS 8414.801695. My customers, 97% of whom are in the United States, will not accept increased costs. In addition, several of the jobs we’ve added were filled in the past year. We added these new employees because we were optimistic about the business climate, the reduction in regulation, and the overall improving economic outlooks. The current trade policies, particularly these tariffs, has changed our business prospects, and regrettably, I expect to eliminate these positions.”

“We currently have approximately $400,000 (cost of goods) of bids won for projects which are awaiting approval and final design modifications and if this additional 25% tariff is approved, our company is facing a $100,000 tax. All of these bids were won using our company standard 30% gross margin and this tariff will essentially eliminate all profit and actually cause us to lose money. This company was started six years ago and we have been able to increase our revenue year over year due to our low margins (building the business) and just renewed the lease (5 years) on our facility. We started with 3 employees and have grown to our current level. The inclusion of this particular code will essentially shut down our small family business.”

“Our basic shopping bag that wholesales for $3.50 and retails for $6.99, takes 15 minutes to make. If we did the cut and sew work here in the United States, the bag would cost upwards of $25.00 retail, which is more than most Americans will spend on a reusable bag when most bags are single-use and free at checkout… This trade-war is misguided and needs to stop. If you go forward with adding bags and packs to the list of tariffs to increase, we will have to reduce our expenses by laying off employees which will hurt our local economy.”

“As a private company, we are not in position to absorb any increase in duty let alone a duty of this magnitude. We are currently operating in a highly competitive industry and function off razor thin margins. As a result, we will be forced to raise wholesale pricing and delay additional hiring. Our wholesale customers, most of which are publicly traded mass retailers, will most certainly pass along this cost increase to the end user, the American citizens. As publicly traded companies, they are not in position to take a substantial reduction in profitability or run the risk of shareholder upheaval. The implementation of the 25% duty will not shift production of these products to the US and the end result will be increased retail pricing the US citizens will ultimately pay.”

“The proposed tariff subcategories on List 3 cut across a wide section of its other product offerings, such that Yotrio would be unable to handle a 25% increase in product cost across the board. Such a cost will ultimately be passed on to retailers, and consumers. A 25% duty on Yotrio’s products would thus create a significant price gap that would allow foreign companies who are not otherwise sourcing their products from China to erode Yotrio’s industry-leading position. This setback and loss in market share cannot be undone, nor can production be re-shored elsewhere in a manner quick enough to blunt its effects. A loss of our consumer base will gravely affect a small business like ours—including all 57 of our employees and their families.”

“As stated above, increased tariffs will result in increased costs for SmartDrive’s products, and the Company may have no choice but to pass these costs on to its customer… The proposed tariffs will likely place SmartDrive products out of reach for many potential customers in the commercial transportation industry, leading to all manner of unintended harm, including but not limited to: harm to existing and future SmartDrive employees through threatened profitability; harm to American trucking companies and the drivers they employ through reduced access to crash-prevention technology, and; harm to the American motorist through reduced implementation of the SmartDrive system across the country. As stated above, if the proposed tariffs move forward, the result is simple – SmartDrive and its U.S. employees lose; SmartDrive’s American clients in the trucking and commercial transportation industry lose; and the many millions of Americans using our nation’s highways and roads each day lose.”

“The overall negative impact on Keeco’s business operation is summarized as follows: 1. Keeco would be unable to pass along the additional costs to its customers. 2. The added expense of the proposed 301 sanctions would impede the growth of our company. 3. The massive capital investments we have made would need to be sheltered or sold and we would need to reduce our labor force by nearly half to mitigate the increase in additional duties caused by the sanctions. 4. Develop of new materials/designs and products would be greatly inhibited as we currently have an extensive development platform in China. 5. Since we are vertically integrated with our Chinese supplier, it would be difficult to find a factory outside of China that would be able to provide us with the streamlined processes that we have had in place. The time and expense to relocate would be cost prohibitive and time consuming. We have enjoyed a long relationship with our Chinese factory and built our business from this model.”

“I am a small business person. I own a Quilt Shop in Palo Cedro, California. Our industry is already burdened with heavy cost on shipping of fabrics and high costs of transportation. An increase of 25% due to tariffs from China, will destroy my business.”

“Any level of duty increase, whether it be 10% or 25% will be catastrophic to our business. Our industry has a very small profit margin. We are unable to absorb the tariffs proposed by the Administration and will be forced to stop investing in and developing our company. We will also be placed in a position that we will need to lay off some of our work force. It is important to note that our retailer customers will also not absorb price increases resulting from the proposed tariffs. It is well documented that the retail industry is facing trying 10 times. Retailers will make us absorb the increased expenses or they simply will not buy our product.”

“Sellers of canned and processed seafood earn low margins on their products. This is due to a variety of factors but means that companies like COS cannot absorb the costs of tariffs and must pass them on to consumers. The resulting price increases, despite appearing small, will have a dramatic impact on sales, particularly in wholesale markets… These costs would need to be borne by COS consumers and customers in the form of higher prices in order for COS to be able to compete successfully against domestic and foreign competitors.”

“The propose tariffs would apply to most of the components of these products thus increasing the cost of all of these products approximately 25%. As many others have indicated and confirmed, Dynacraft will have no choice but to pass along these increased costs to its consumers. Effectively, the tariffs will be an additional 25% tax on consumers. Such increased costs and taxes will result in many consumers being unable to afford these products and other consumers reducing the amount of these products purchased… As another example, many businesses depend on these products to operate and provide their goods and services or fulfill their duties. These businesses are numerous and varied, ranging from delivery services to public safety departments. When these businesses are required to pay more for these products due to the proposed tariffs many will be forced to shrink their businesses and some will be forced to close their doors. Unemployment rates will rise.”

“Since so much of WTB’s the USA bicycle business is supplied by China, market disruption caused by immediate 25% tariffs would cause disproportionate economic harm to the United States’ bicycle industry. WTB would be faced with increasing prices and becoming uncompetitive, or holding prices to compete with foreign suppliers, losing working capital, which would necessitate reduced investment in staff and innovation.”

“Through our research, we have determined that it is not possible to find labor in the United States to hand-peel, devein, marinate, and/or bread shrimp without adding significantly inflated costs to American consumers… We firmly believe that the tariffs imposed on imported shrimp from China would be harmful to many small businesses like us, ultimately hurting American jobs and American consumers.”

“An additional 10 to 25 percent tariff in these items will materially increase our costs for these items. We will be forced to absorb the costs of the higher tariffs – affecting our profitability and ability to reinvest in our business, develop new products and create jobs – or to pass these higher costs along to our customers – taking money out of their pocket or preventing them from making that purchase.”

“The impact of the tariffs may force us to eliminate planned hires and/or eliminate current positions. The impact would spread to our customers as well, since headwear, as a leading revenue generator for many endurance event companies, helps them create and sustain jobs. In addition, headwear is an important training item used as part of a healthy lifestyle. On all these counts, the tariffs will hurt American consumers, and benefit primarily non-US manufacturers that happen to be in countries other than China. Significantly, should an 25% tariff be implemented, rather than 10%, the effect on our business could be catastrophic, eliminating future hiring altogether and cutting our current business and employment substantially. Moreover, any surviving production would still not be in the US, rather shifting to alternate overseas producers with higher prices and lower quality.”

“Rather, it will lead to lost jobs here at home and significantly increased prices to consumers (assuming that we could continue to make our products elsewhere at a competitive price)… The Administration’s efforts to require fair and nondiscriminatory postal rates for shipments from China and other countries, as well as requiring marketplaces to actively police third party listings for intellectual property infringers and negotiating for universal trademark and patent rules to be applied in China, would do more to address the intellectual property challenges facing Nite Ize (and similar United States businesses that import products under the subheadings listed in this response) than any proposed additional tariffs, without the negative effects to job creation and maintenance, product innovation, and consumer prices here at home. If enacted, rather than stifle intellectual property infringement and technology transfer, the proposed tariffs could easily create the reverse effect – driving Nite Ize and similar companies out of business, allowing the Chinese infringers unfettered access to United States consumers.”

“However, placing duties as high as 25% on imports of our products from China, will jeopardize our business in several ways. The costs from these duties will have to be passed onto our retailers, who will in turn have to pass these onto the consumers. These significantly higher prices for recreational gear, will lead to decreased consumer purchases of these products. Thus, Exxel’s sales orders will drop. This will hinder Exxel’s business. We will not be able to carry out our business plan to expand and create more U.S. jobs.”

“Imposing a twenty-five percent tariff will not penalize Chinese companies but rather American businesses that utilize global supply chains to efficiently deliver their products to consumers at a competitive price. Shop lists are not part of the Made in China 2025 program. Adding an additional 25% cost to imported shop lists would negatively impact the local businesses and the consumers purchasing them- it would provide no real benefit to the country or the industry… Section 301 duties on these shop lists would harm American companies, jeopardize American jobs, increase shipping costs and impair our domestic industry’s ability to compete on a global playing field.”

“The proposed tariff listing on the above goods are not a threat to any US manufacturer and will only serve to unnecessarily add millions of dollars to our product costs, threaten US jobs and ultimately increase consumer prices.”

“However, a 10-25% increase in duties on frozen truffles from China would increase costs of ingredients for preserved truffle product to 22.3%-36.3% with increased duties, and Sabatino may have to cut employment at its West Haven facility as a result. Competitors, who do not manufacture in the United States, would likely imported truffle products directly from France, Italy, and Spain, at tariff rates well below 22-36.3% ad valorem, as fresh truffles are duty free from Europe. Sabatino would likely pay the increased duty and decrease its profit margin significantly, without increasing any prices to the customer to ensure customer commitment. As a result, Sabatino would suffer loss of revenue in the amount of approximately $100,000 annually.”

“A 25% tariff… would be devastating to Rome’s export business as Rome’s customers would then have the incentive to buy from suppliers in other countries not affected by the proposed tariff. If imposed, Rome will be unable to absorb the 25% tariff and will be forced to raise its prices, putting it a disadvantage on the competitive international market and threatening its financial viability.”

“It is my opinion that imposing these tariffs will increase costs to the end consumer and the general American public. As a supplier to the U.S. Steel Industry, we would be forced to pass some or all the tariff cost to our customers, the U.S. Steel manufacturers. They in turn, will be forced to pass some or all the price increases to their customers, the steel consumers. The cost increase would impact everyone who purchases the vast number of products made with U.S. steel. The large consumers of steel in the United States include the construction, transportation, automotive, energy, packaging, and appliance industries… There are a lot of bystanders that are going to be hit hard by these broad and sweeping tariffs. The aggregate number of jobs that could be directly impacted, and the effect on inflation as both products and services are impacted, is huge to the point of being immeasurable.”

“Retailers purchase Signature Brands products with set price points. Our products cannot absorb a tariff of 10 percent or 25 percent. Our retail partners will be unwilling to absorb a 10 percent or 25 percent higher cost. The only alternative is that these duties attempt to be passed directly to the American consumer, who will not pay the higher price, thereby shrinking Signature Brands business.”

“For the reasons set forth herein, CLOSETMAID contends that the imposition of the additional tariffs with respect to the products under the subheadings specified below will have a significant negative impact on U.S. businesses – including CLOSETMAID – their workers and their consumers. Imposition of additional tariffs on these products would threaten the domestic and international capabilities of CLOSETMAID, and significantly impede our ability to compete against foreign competitors”

“The impact of the tariff increases would be higher final product cost to consumers, the result of which will be decreased sales, denying Americans the products they need.”

“Our ability to import these products competitively, allows a small independent company like ours to grow, hire new employees and compete with these established giants. If you take away our competitive edge by imposing these tariffs, you will not only be feeding the major players in the industry but you will be sacrificing hundreds if not thousands of jobs from small independent businesses… Trade negotiations are supposed to be conducted in a diplomatic, professional manner. US Businesses and consumers should never be used as pawns. Hundreds of thousands of peoples livelihoods are at stake. This administration is playing a high stakes poker game with American jobs on the line.”

“We have had candid discussions with our customers over the last few weeks regarding pricing increases based on the new tariffs. They have adamantly stated they will not accept a price increase and expect Dyno to absorb the impact from the tariffs since they do not intend to raise product prices to consumers. While we believe consumers will pay more for Singer-branded products, we have no control over the retailers decisions. Accordingly, Dyno expects to see a significant reduction to profit margins should the tariffs go into effect… Additionally, we will be placed at a competitive disadvantage to our non-U.S. competitors as they will not be affected by the new tariffs. This will limit our ability to invest in our employees and other capital assets and we will need to consider whether to institute headcount and other cost reductions to offset lost profits.”

“Rally’s core business model and foundation is based upon us sourcing our products in China. No other market that we have reviewed has been able to sustain quality, cost effectiveness and consumer satisfaction. In light of imposing a 10% to 25% cost increase to our production model is vastly significant since all of our products are made in China. We rely on our Chinese factories since they provide us the best possible result in today’s production space… We are not aware of any efficient or economical opportunities for our company to make to offset any such cost increases.”

“At the same time, the additional duties will result in a very real economic harm to Supreme, a small business in the United States. As a small company, Supreme must compete vigorously with the larger companies who have the capability of purchasing in volume and averaging the additional duty costs over a wider variety of products. This disadvantage is exaggerated by the fact that Supreme will need to outlay duties in advance of receiving payment from its customer and will need to reserve more capital to assure the surety on their customs bond that Supreme will not inflict undue financial risk on the surety.”

“EnvisionWare is working hard to expand the delivery of services to libraries of all sizes and budgets. It is good for them and it is good for EnvisionWare’s business. However, the imposition of huge tariffs on core products would force EnvisionWare to escalate its prices to the library community – the only market served by the company. Fewer libraries would be able to buy and use EnvisionWare products and services. Aside from hurting the citizens, libraries and overall communities, it will substantially harm EnvisionWare because of the reduced sales that will result from a significant price increase.”

“Second, should the imposition of tariffs on the above-listed products move forward, Masterbuilt runs the risk of laying off employees here in the U.S. in an effort to attempt to compensate for the increased costs of our products. While we might in other circumstances seek to avoid the loss of jobs that would result from the effect of the proposed tariff through alternative sourcing, currently it is cost prohibitive, and therefore impractical, for Masterbuilt to purchase certain components of our products within the U.S.”

“Based on current estimates, Kids II will incur an additional duty spend of over $11 million if these tariffs are implemented, which will compel Kids II to take one or both of the following actions: – Reduce its U.S. workforce in Georgia in order to free up capital to compensate for the tariff impact , or – Substantially raise the price of its products, which will make Kids II uncompetitive against larger conglomerates and potentially threaten significant sales channels.”

“Placing tariffs on our imports from China would increase the retail price for gas grills, torches and candles, placing these products out of reach for many families, and significantly reducing sales. Together, Char-Broil and Lamplight employ over 400 full and part-time workers, and reduced sales of their products would place those jobs in jeopardy.”

“As the leading supplier of such equipment to broadband service providers, other businesses, and consumers, ARRIS estimates that the proposed tariffs, if adopted, would impose approximately $200 million per year in additional costs on its products…raising tariffs on broadband products would harm, not help, U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and job-creation…Broadband is a major driver of economic growth and innovation in the U.S. The proposed tariffs would effectively impose a massive tax on our country’s broadband ecosystem by significantly raising the costs of key broadband inputs. Ultimately, American consumers and businesses, including small and mid-size businesses, would pay the price.”

“Additional tariffs on methionine would increase feed costs significantly, and therefore is of strong concern to UEP members. Given that methionine promotes animal health, enhances production of nutritious food for the U.S. population, and contributes positively to the reduction of the carbon footprint for poultry”

“Imposition of 25 percent additional duty on the above-discussed Chinese imports is essential to Mohawk and other U.S. manufacturers’ ability to creating a monopoly for themselves, all the while dealing a crushing blow to small businesses that also create jobs here in the U.S., without the guise of protectionism. If permitted to be included on the Administration’s Section 301 list of products, it is the American Consumer that will suffer as a result of a greedy few, through forced higher prices for all, due to the lack of competition. Again we state, very un-American.”

“We would suffer a devastating loss of revenue and could not meet our fixed costs without these frozen sales. Inferior products, for which we are already at a price disadvantage in the market, would edge our products aside, as the tariffs make our prices uncompetitive… Tariffs on these subheadings would without question harm U.S. fishermen, and the U.S. seafood industry of which Norpac is a proud part.”

“The tariffs (specifically HTS 84379000- Parts for machinery used in the milling industry & 7218- Stainless Steel ) will put our main competitors from Europe and Canada in better cost position to compete with us in the U.S. market since they also buy their material from China but will avoid direct tariffs. The proposed tariffs will definitely hurt us as a small/medium sized business and put us at a competitive disadvantage to all our foreign competition rather than protecting US jobs. It will not just have an impact on us as a business our community as production will be cut affecting 80 local families. As you can see from my comments above the implementation of this tariff increase will do nothing but cause disproportionate economic harm of a potential 50% reduction in income/taxes paid with no positive effects to be seen unless the tariffs are imposed on ALL imports from all foreign countries.”

“I am requesting to eliminate the proposed tariffs on 5208.52.30 5208.52.40 5208.52-50” I run a small 600 square ft brick and mortar quilt shop with 1100 bolts on average. My shop is located in a rural area of Iowa and people are not willing to pay the MSRP, if there was a 25% increase on fabric this would price me out of the market. “

“The consequences of tariffs placed on U.S. soybean imports to China would have short- and long-term consequences for American soybean farmers. Short term, the volley of proposed tariffs between the countries will negatively impact soybean prices. A study commissioned by the U.S. Soybean Export Council and conducted by Purdue University assessed potential outcomes if China imposed tariffs on soybeans ranging from 10 to 30 percent. It predicted an annual loss in U.S. economic well-being of between $1.7 billion and $3.3 billion, and that China would suffer similar losses. On the other hand, Brazil (the worlds second-largest soybean producer) would gain roughly $2.7 billion a year in economic well-being. As Americas second-largest soybean producer, this economic pain would be felt disproportionately by farmers in the Hawkeye State. Long-term, an ongoing trade dispute with China risks stoking anti-Americanism sentiment that could jeopardize the strength of trade relations between the two countries relationships that have taken U.S. soybean farmers nearly 35 years to develop.”

“An immediate 25% ad valorem duty will damage our competitive position and challenge our ability to grow as a US producer. We recommend that the HTSUS Subheadings listed here be removed from the list for the Section 301 proposal. To raise the duties on these parts will harm businesses like ours that do not make their products overseas but import parts for assembly jobs here in the United States.”

“The proposed tariff on HTSUS 9023.00.0000 would significantly increase our supply cost leaving us no choice but to pass on price increases to the students, teachers, and schools who buy our finished products. Due to limited funding, these individuals and educational institutions will either purchase fewer educational models or they will buy from international competitors. As a result, domestic revenue will be reduced, export of our products will diminish, and our ability to maintain employment and support our community will suffer.”

“Thus, the end result of imposing a 25% duty on these articles would be (a) a loss of United States manufacturing jobs, (b) damage to small and medium sized enterprises, (c) the loss of U.S. export markets, and (d) no offsetting benefit to any United States industries.”

“However, imposing broad and unfocused tariffs on products like the subject chemical used to produce a U.S. made drug critical to the treatment of a disease will only serve to discourage U.S. manufacturing, risk increasing health care costs, and jeopardize cancer treatment. These are consequences that will result in disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests.”

“Should an additional 10-25% tariff be applied to these items, the likely economic harm can be summarized as follows: • Americans will buy fewer items or go without them. • Suppressed demand will erode profitability and potentially eliminate entire product lines. • Revenue will decrease for Ace corporate and Ace retailers. • Direct investment will decrease. • Inflation will worsen. • Salary reductions and job losses are inevitable.”

“A 10% to 25% tariff would most assuredly cause our 7 year-old, Illinois small business severe economic harm. The resulting price increase would reduce our ability to be competitive and would result in lower sales and the elimination of jobs at our company.”

“Ultimately, the imposition of a 25% tariff on the above-listed HTS numbers would cause Brake Parts Inc to pass this expense on to our customers, which would cause the cost to the American consumer to increase at a proportional rate. If this tariff could not be passed on to our customers, it is highly probable that our company could not maintain operations at our current levels, and would have to make significant job cuts to U.S. employees. In addition, since these parts are typically a part of an automotive braking system, such a substantial increase in cost could result in consumers delaying necessary repairs, and create a potential safety issue on American roads”

“Without a doubt, the proposed tariff on bristle/hair would cause severe harm to our small company and US brush manufacturers and consumers of the finished brushes produced in the US. The tariff would not be effective to eliminate China’s acts, policies, and practices as the bristle/hair is only available in China and there is no alternative for the items listed in the tariff. It will only help China as it will encourage more manufacturing of the finished brushes in China instead of the United States.”

“The additional 10% (or 25%) duty proposed for pine nuts would cause severe harm to the product lines of US food manufacturers who use pine nuts as an ingredient. Giovanni Rana is an example of an SME that uses pine nuts in its manufacture of pesto sauce. Pine nuts make up a high percentage of the recipe for Rana’s pesto products. Food manufacturing and sales is a low margin business, so that a 10% ingredient price increase would destroy the profitability of the pesto line of products. In turn, closing these lines would cause US job loss…The manufacturing process that now takes place in the US (not in China) would move outside the US to avoid the duty. In other words, the tariff would move existing US food manufacturing jobs outside the US without harming China.. A price increase on food products felt at US grocery stores as shoppers check out
would harm US consumers.”

“Due to sales agreements with customers and the timing of retail line reviews, it is highly unlikely Scott Pet will be able to quickly and easily pass tariff costs on to customers and in many cases Scott Pet would jeopardize future sales by increasing prices due to the duties. Being forced to absorb the additional cost of Chinese imports, Scott Pet will be impacted in the following decision areas: Potential layoffs in Scott Pet’s American workforce and an immediate halt in all American manufacturing expansion plans.”

“At a 25% tariff level, the Company estimates that the impact to its business will exceed $15 million annually. These costs will ultimately need to be passed on to consumers (i.e. parents and caregivers) in the form of higher prices or it will no longer be economically feasible for the Company to develop, produce and market these products. In the case of car seat components, these proposed tariffs will impact the viability of USA manufacturing.”

“The potential longer-term impacts are well-known: lost jobs, closed facilities, and eventually, the closure of an. American company that has made significant contributions to many employees, families and communities for decades. In short, imposing Section 301 duties on furniture .and furniture inputs would increase the costs for our customers and the American consumer. This would lead to higher prices and reduced demand. Ultimately, the impact would hurt our bottom line and our continued ability to produce domestically and employ hard-working Americans.”

“Because ALM products are designed primarily for home use, Mr. Kersey of ALM will testify that the proposed tariff on the lawn and garden products and their parts and components, such as the ones listed below, would have a disproportionate impact on individual consumers of yard and gardening tools. Furthermore, because relatively lightweight yard and garden tools provided by ALM and others are very popular with women and elderly for use in home gardens, women and elderly consumers would be affected disproportionately by the proposed tariff.”

“In summary, the effect of the 10-25% tariff proposal on rare earths and magnets will be as follows: 1. It will lead to increased prices of rare earth containing products in the USA a. Automobiles, Electronics, Consumer Appliances, Industrial tools, etc. 2. It will cause undue financial stress on intermediate suppliers / customers such as Polaris Rare Earth Materials, LLC. Polaris will be forced to curtail spending, and possibly reduce employment. 3. It will allow Polaris foreign competitors in Europe and Asia to gain market share in the USA at our expense.”

“In Summary the proposed Tariff would greatly affect the population living below the poverty line who rely on these forms of heating and cooling options. The additional costs would in turn minimize the % of the population who can afford these heating and cooling options. The end result could mean more deaths to the population living below the poverty line with insufficient heating and cooling options.”

“The resulting increased costs of supplies from the imports from China will lead to a greater increase in the price to the retailer, which will lead to an even greater increase in the price to the ultimate U.S. consumer. In turn, the price increases on the consumer will lead to a decrease in demand for Step2/Leisure backyard products, lower sales and, ultimately, if the trade dispute is not resolved quickly a resulting loss of revenue and jobs. The average American family will have pay a higher price for pergolas, lounge swings and other desired quality outdoor wooden products, The Company will have to scale back business plans, reallocate financial resources, and employees will potentially suffer from reduced hours or forced job reductions. Obviously, the effect on Step2/Leisure of a 10% or 25% duties would be severe.”

“The tariffs pose a significant harm to the competitive interests of DEMDACO, its ability to sustain the high-quality jobs it provides to U.S. citizens, and its ability to grow and give back to the community. The costs also threaten other jobs dependent on handling and managing logistics for DEMDACO. The negative effects of the tariffs will not only be felt by DEMDACO, but by other U.S. importers and consumers.”

“Imports under heading 9023 are currently duty-free, reflecting the policy of not placing a burdensome tax on educational products. The sudden imposition of punitive tariffs would thus place Pitsco—and the educational entities that rely on our offerings—in a precarious position. Tariffs as high as 25 percent would force us to spend millions of dollars every year in customs duties—costs that would have to be passed along to schools, teachers, and students.”

“lnstead, horseshoe nails from other countries will benefit, without Chinese industrial policy being impacted at a ll. As such, imposition of 301 duties on farrier products will (at best) raise prices for American consumers, hurt small and medium sized American businesses, and benefit manufacturers in third countries.”

“[T]he tariffs would result in potential job loss in Kentucky and Tennessee, as HeathCo adjusts to the new market conditions… Because of the competitive nature of the market, HeathCo would have difficulty passing on the cost of tariffs to customers. Historically our retail customers have rejected price increases. In an extraordinary circumstance such as this — a change in market conditions — it is conceivable that some customers might be able to accept a 10-25 percent increase given that all suppliers would be experiencing the same cost increase. That said, the majority of the 10-25 percent increase in price, should that be possible, would most likely be passed on to the end consumer. For the majority of our end consumers, these products are a necessity for which they expect to pay the lowest price possible. A tariff on these imported goods would act as a direct consumption tax— raising the price on products for consumers that cannot afford a price hike.”

“A recent survey of around 20% of NHLA members shows that they lost $500 million of revenue (annualized) in just these few months of tariff discussion, $2 billion of U.S. exports are at risk. More than that, a substantial majority of members said they were facing job cut decisions between 10-50% of their workforce, some said they will have to shut down. Hardwood lumber companies provide much needed rural jobs and help bring value to landowners that encourages them to keep their land as forest. The eastern hardwood forest is a great conservation and economic success. The very infrastructure of the industry is in danger because of tariff discussions, and will be difficult to replace.”

“The proposed tariffs on go-karts, mini-bikes, and mini-bike kits and parts covered under the subheadings listed above will undoubtedly cause disproportionate economic harm to our small business. The typical consumer for our products is a parent who wants to spend quality time outside with their children and we understand that it is important to them that our products remain affordable. We think it is unlikely that we could pass these increased costs on to our customers without severely reducing our sales. This will result, of course, in the loss of American jobs and American capital.”

“The inevitable rise in the prices of our products due to the additional duties would most likely result in a meaningful reduction of our sales volume in the United States. This would impede our ability to maintain our financial commitments and curtail our investment in new research and development activities. Consequently, our ability to develop new and innovative products for U.S. consumers and create new intellectual property in the United States will be diminished, which could ultimately lead to increased manufacturing and sales of products with less U.S. design work and innovation. This would result in the delay or elimination of new products and would decrease the amount of new products we can provide for sale to U.S. consumers. Unfortunately, we also may be forced, at least in the short term, to consider taking action with respect to U.S. employees, including freezing the hiring of more employees in United States, which would slow down our dynamic expansion.”

“And, even more notably, as explained above, the tariff will directly affect consumers who will experience higher prices and supply shortages. Above all, these tariffs will undoubtedly and immediately raise prices for customers who rely on modestly-priced sporting goods in order to maintain an active, healthy lifestyle. This would discourage participation in many sports and activities necessary for physical wellbeing by raising the costs of participation.”

“If an additional 25% duty is imposed on these subheadings, the Company will be required to adjust its pricing in a way that results in higher costs to U.S. consumers. Such a result is inconsistent with the USTWs stated intent to place tariffs on products that are not likely to adversely impact U.S. consumers and businesses.”

“Imposing 10 to 25% duties on these products would not only hurt American consumers of these popular, every-day consumer items, but the added costs we will have to pay would also undermine the U.S. manufacturing operations of our candle and scented wax products, including our jar candles and votives. Our impacted products are not the sort of high-tech products that are targeted by the Made in China 2025 policy, nor are they the type of products typically subject to intellectual property theft. However, they are popular consumer products that are designed, produced, marketed and distributed by U.S. workers who will be harmed by these duties.”

“I am writing concerning the Administration’s proposed 25% tariffs on China sourced furniture and components/parts. While our company understands the issues, these tariffs are intended to address, in the case of furniture and furniture components, the tariffs would do substantial harm to American businesses and consumers, and while the may have a short-term impact on China, they will not return jobs to the USA. In fact, we believe they will harm jobs in the USA. The impact would be swift and potentially devastating for our company and our customers. If tariffs were to be imposed on our products it would be destructive to our small, growing””
business.”

“As the below graphic illustrates, a 10-25% increase will mean Americans will buy fewer items. The suppressed demand will erode profitability. Revenues will decrease, as will direct investment. ATG employs roughly 1,600 associates in the United States and estimates a 10% drop in demand will result in a [ ] drop in U.S. investment and headcount.”

“To the extent that the Company incurs significantly increased costs as a result of the Section 301 duties, the impact will be felt by the Company’s U.S. operations. In turn, that is likely to have an adverse impact on the Company’s future U.S. operations, growth and investment, which includes 4,000 U.S. employees and production facilities in more than six U.S. states. Whether USTR implements the proposed duties at an ad valorem rate of 10% or 25%, it will be economically infeasible for the Company to import the covered merchandise without raising prices for U.S. customers to help offset the cost. As such, the additional duties will essentially be a significant tax on a U.S. consumers and U.S. businesses in the food and related industries. To the extent the Company is not able to fully pass on this price increase to its customers, it may need to develop cost reduction plans and reduce investment to mitigate the impact of the additional duties.”

“[I]f an additional 25% duty were imposed, it is virtually certain that a customer looking to purchase a foam mattress online would find that a mattress that would have cost $700 prior to the imposition of the duties would now cost $875… U.S. companies like us, are growing and hiring in the United States because we and our retail partners are delivering value and convenience to American consumers in a rapidly growing market. Additional duties would inhibit that growth and impose an unwarranted burden on what should be a success story for the U.S. economy.”

“Based on TIC’s research of the Xanthan market, non-Chinese Xanthan Gum is priced approximately 60% higher than Chinese Xanthan Gum. That Increased cost, Coupled with additional research and development expenditures, means that TIC and its customers would be forced to pay any imposition of tariffs as a comparatively priced substitutable product does not exist.”

“There is no question that the imposition of 25% tariffs on the three HTSUS subheadings noted above will cause the loss of good paying American manufacturing and engineering jobs at our factory in Maine. Any prolonged imposition of these tariffs could have long-term implications on the future of one of America’s oldest family-owned manufacturing businesses.”

“A 25% tariff on polyester alone would increase our cost of making products that use that fiber by 10%. We cannot apply a 10% increase on prices, when our competitors prices are already below ours. Our gross margins have been greatly affected by increasing wage and health care costs. Adding another 10% cost will literally wipe out any profits we have… By placing tariffs on raw materials, our government is hurting small US manufacturers like us. While we are not a big company employing hundreds of workers, the number of people we do employ is significant for Maine.”

“I am part owner of a fertilizer company in Maine. We import several specialty fertilizers from China that we are not able to obtain from any suppliers producing these materials in the USA. The proposed tariffs will either end several product lines that we offer or force us to raise our prices to our domestic customers.”

“In 2017, Maine’s commercial harvest of lobster had an ex-vessel value of $450 million and the harvester sector employs roughly 10,000 fishermen and crew. Our supply chain member businesses contribute $1 billion to Maine’s economy annually and supports 5,500 jobs. Maine is a large, rural state and this industry is critical to our GDP. MLDA testimony in this matter will discuss the importance of the U.S.-China lobster trade, and in particular the benefits of this trade for American small and medium size businesses.”

“We estimate that price sensitivity in the market for musical instrument cases is about 1.25 to 1.50. Thus
for a 25% cost increase resulting from the addition of a tariff, we would expect unit sales of cases to
decline 31% to 37%. This would have spill-over effects on instruments, bows and other accessories
needed for the outfit necessary to play. Combined, we estimate that the sales reduction would result in
our being forced to lay off 10 to 15 staff members in skilled functions.”

“Such tariffs simply will not serve to deter Chinese cyber-theft of intellectual property or forced technology transfer practices, rather it will overwhelm and destroy smaller sized American-owned business manufacturers and eliminate U.S. jobs. We would ask the administration to please accomplish this goal without seriously impacting the viability of our business and the lives of our local employees and their families, as well as that of the brick-and-mortar retail sector.”

“Increased costs will negatively impact consumers along with the building, housing, and commercial industries. As these proposed tariffs cause prices to climb, sales volume will likely decrease resulting in lost jobs for American workers. Consumers will see price increases from Masco Cabinetry if additional duties are imposed on these HTSUS codes.”

“For example, if the Administration imposes tariffs on control boards that Whirlpool uses to make one of its industry-leading dishwashers in Findlay, Ohio, the price of those control boards will inevitably go up, increasing Whirlpool’s cost of production. Conversely, Whirlpool’s foreign competitors, who make dishwashers in low-cost export platforms, will not face similar price pressure because the components they use — assembled by foreign workers in another country — are not subject to tariff. Instead, they enter the United States free of Section 301 tariffs as part of the finished dishwasher. Whirlpool applauds the Administration’s decision to add finished home appliances to proposed List 3. Imposing tariffs on these finished appliances will allow the Administration to meet its Section 301 objectives without damaging U.S. appliance manufacturers and the tens of thousands of workers they employ”

“The customers we serve are hard-working American families, the majority of which are low to middle income. They shop our stores because of our low prices and their trust in the value of the products we provide to them. Adding a 10 or 25 percent tariff on the Products would have a substantial impact on retail prices. Duty costs are an element of the cost of goods sold and are thus included in the calculation of the final retail price. As a result, if other factors are held constant, the price of the final Product will increase based on the imposition of an import duty. Our Products typically garner a low-margin, so the 10 or 25 percent tariff would likely be passed on to consumers.”

“Our system is a complex one, developed over many years. We already have mature machinery technology, as well as an operation for recycling waste here in the U.S. and then shipping it globally as raw material to manufacturers who make useful commercial products out of what would otherwise be considered waste and a nuisance. If our machine prices are increased, due to an additional 10% or 25% tariff, they will likely become too expensive. Our system here will be disrupted. Companies who use our service will not be able to fulfill their contracts and employees will lose their jobs.”

“BreathableBaby’s mesh crib liners are patented. 6 Even so, the company’s profit margins on mesh crib liners are less than 6 percent. Consumers of our mesh crib liners are generally new parents, many of whom are of limited financial means. Consequently, BreathableBaby cannot pass the tariffs on to our customers or their retail customers. Even at 10 percent, a tariff would destroy the company’s profits. Simply put, BreathableBaby cannot bring mesh crib liners to the U.S. market under the burden of even a 10 percent tariff, much less a 25 percent tariff.”

“Rather, tariffs on these products could very well force American school districts, educators, and students’ parents out of the market for these goods entirely. School districts and students would be left with limited options for innovative education products. The tariffs’ indirect impacts could be just as painful. If the tariffs take effect as proposed, Ergotron’s ability to invest in its continued growth and in the vitality of local communities would be stymied. Our investment in innovation also would necessarily be curtailed… Ultimately, new tariffs would put hundreds of Ergotron jobs at risk. Ergotron is committed to American manufacturing and American workers.”

“The end-users of our products span a wide range of consumers and include homeowners and renters, farmers, contractors, landscapers, small business owners, maintenance and installation professionals, and office employees. • A 10-25% increase on these garden carts and parts will have to be passed onto those consumers, which means those Americans will buy fewer items or go without them. • Suppressed demand will erode profitability and potentially eliminate entire product lines. • Revenue will decrease for Tricam and its retail customers. • Direct investment will decrease. • Job losses would be inevitable at our company.”

“Prior to the proposed tariff increase, we had plans for continued growth to 40+ full time employees here in Springfield over the next few years. This tariff will have a negative impact on our business and stunt our growth as it will result in profit loss due to an increased cost for our product.”

“Mark Andy relies on the revenue derived from the export of flexographic presses to China, and strongly believes that an increased tariff levied on flexographic printing machinery would create disproportionate economic harm to our company. The proposed tariff, which would effectively create a total tax rate of over 50%, would put Mark Andy’s #1 market position in China at great risk. The proposed tariff would also put other lines of Mark Andy’s business at risk, as well as other U.S. companies. Customers of U.S. flexographic machinery also purchase aftermarket service, parts, and consumables from Mark Andy and other U.S. companies. The proposed tariff may have a detrimental cascading effect on the entire industry. This will ultimately have a negative effect on U.S. consumers who may see higher prices in all areas, including consumer goods.”

“A 10-25% increase on this sports equipment and gear will have to be passed onto those consumers, which means those Americans will buy fewer items or go without them. • Suppressed demand will erode profitability and potentially eliminate entire product lines. • Revenue will decrease for Rawlings and its retail customers. • Direct investment on items such as U.S. research and development will decrease. • Job losses would be inevitable.”

“Our belief is that the resulting disproportionate economic risk to our company, employees, and thousands of corporate customers, as well as the broader communities we serve with safety solutions in the public interest, would be an unintended but damaging consequence of these contemplated tariff actions.”

“As detailed below, Hallmark believes that applying higher duties to imports of these products will adversely affect U.S. consumers as well as Hallmark and other U.S. companies engaged in the related product lines. We note that the adverse impact on Hallmark would not be limited to the retail operations described above. Also affected would be the Kansas City creative jobs associated with the greetings-related products noted above, including artists, sculptors, engineers, graphic designers and product planners.”

“The fabric industry has experienced remarkable increases in cost of fabrics over the last 4 years, driving printers to demand we PREORDER fabrics before they will even print them so there are never any overstocks they have to discount to get rid of… eliminating the dealers who used to offer overstocks at reduced prices, which used to give the small business owner some opportunities to make money on industry overprints. Now there are none. We are forced to pay full price for everything and can not count on being able to reorder winners. The leftovers are not there! Couple that with about a 25% \ across the board increase in fabric costs over the last 4 years and we are in crisis. People can barely afford to sew now. It is killing business for fabric shop owners and diminishing the incentive to sew. Quilting is becoming a hobby for only rich people! Help!”

“I am requesting an elimination of the proposed tariffs on 5208.52.30 5208.52.40 5208.52-50. As a small retail fabric store and an online fabric, pattern, and notions seller, we cannot afford an additional 25% increase in the cost of goods imported into the USA. So many small fabric businesses have closed and we are all struggling to pay our employees and taxes and still be able to provide quality products to our customers. Our customers here in rural Mississippi cannot afford higher prices either and many of them sew to save money.”

“Retaining our products on the list will not advance the Administration’s goal to prevent further discriminatory actions by China. Tariffs are not paid by China; they are paid by the importer; i.e., our businesses. Absorbing these added costs is not feasible; thus, we will be left with no choice to pass them down, resulting in higher retail prices. The disproportional impact these tariffs will have on average, hard-working Americans can be avoided by removing the THUS subheadings discussed in our comments.”

“United would be seriously disadvantaged in the marketplace were tariffs to be implemented on these kits from China. Increased tariffs would strip us of the competitive advantage we currently hold with other manufacturers, who import from other Southeast Asian countries. These tariffs will also encourage our competitors to import fully finished upholstery from other countries, such as Vietnam, not subject to the tariffs. If we lose our competitive advantage in the marketplace, the elimination of US manufacturing jobs in our factories located in Northeast Mississippi, North Carolina and California would be the likely result.”

“We have routinely researched manufacturing our product here in the USA. The most recent quotes we have received would require us to double our prices. Our cost of goods sold for made in the USA would increase an estimated $500,000 were we to manufacture in the USA. It will take a minimum of 18 months to move our production elsewhere. The USA should put an end to our Presidents self-inflicted trade war. Economically this unnecessary trade war will not benefit US citizens in the long run and is a job killer not a job creator. Tariffs are a tax on the consumer of all goods and higher tariffs are inflationary. As it stands now with the uncertainty of these tariff Crazy Creek has suspended purchasing of products as we cannot purchase without knowing what our cost will be. An additional delay will move our production past our upcoming selling season. This tariff if imposed will put our company out of business, not later but now.”

“Lighting is not only a passion but my livelihood. As a lighting showroom owner, not only do I need to compete with online stores, as well as keep my end consumers happy with their price point, but I am also responsible for eight staff members. If these tariffs go into effect, I can almost guarantee this will have a negative impact on my staff and my consumers. Tariffs will negatively effect small businesses in America at this time. We must come up with other ways to make international trading more feasible.”

“Simms is a rapidly growing company and our ability to invest in future growth hinges on profitability. We will be unable to absorb the additional duties proposed on the above product categories without making meaningful changes to our business. These changes include retail price adjustments, effectively passing a portion of the additional cost along to American consumers. Another likely impact is a reduction in planned hiring, and decreased investment in innovation.”

“Now lets talk about the 20 to 30 year old age group. They are the ones that are trying to stay home to raise a family because child care costs are very high. They would go to work just to pay for child care!! For them to stay at home they have to be very frugal and pinch every penny. These tariffs will make it impossible for them to afford any material. This age group likes to make their own things and take pride in telling you. It helps them find a place of peace as they create in this not so perfect world. Being creative and sewing gives them a place to escape to with out leaving their home.”

“Not only is it unjustifiable to impose additional duties on products manufactured by Gilbarco in China, but if this ‘remedy’ is imposed, it is likely to have negative unintended consequences, for at least four reasons: (1) the Company’s long-term investment in its wholly-owned subsidiaries in China will compel Gilbarco to continue sourcing products from China; (2) any losses incident to the increased duties will accrue in the United States, impacting U.S. profitability, investments, employees, and shareholders; (3) the increased costs (in the form of either 10% or 25% duties) may cause the Company to lose market share to competitors that do not manufacture in the United States; and (4) if Gilbarco is ultimately forced to restructure its sourcing of covered merchandise as a result of the increased duties, additional U.S. jobs will not result.”

“With the proposed increased duties, our customers would not tolerate a price increase of the magnitude necessary to profitably sell cast nets. A 25% duty would increase our cost by 25% at a minimum with no allowance for increased labor and material costs, which the Chinese have threatened. Most importers can only assume 3-4% with no price increase. We believe that sales would drop 60-70% at a minimum because customers would buy for necessity only. That means that customers would repair and keep their nets longer.”

“We are already experiencing higher costs on our input materials due to tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum products under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Act. Thus, imposing additional tariffs under Section 301 would add an enormous, debilitating burden on our U.S. manufacturing operations, and jeopardize American jobs… Consequently, imposing 10 to 25% tariffs on these products would only lead to higher retail prices or to retailers simply eliminating our products from their shelves.”

“If finished furniture products in particular are assessed a 10 or 25 percent tariff, we expect that members will dramatically reduce their product offerings and will be forced to raise their prices on finished goods well beyond the level of consumer acceptance. This naturally will lead to fewer sales. The impact of fewer sales for AHF A members will be felt beyond each member’s bottom line. Our members report that U.S. job losses are expected if 10 or 25 percent duties on furniture or furniture parts go into effect. These include jobs in U.S. furniture manufacturing, sales and distribution. As shown in Attachment I, there are over 2 million estimated total employees in the U.S. home furnishings value chain whose livelihoods are directly threatened by the proposed Section 301 duties. These are good-paying American jobs in furniture design and engineering, raw materials harvesting and preparation, production and assembly, distribution and retail.”

“The inability to produce our quality products in the U.S. will cause additional unemployment, increased costs to municipalities, contractors, landscapers, grounds keepers, and most importantly, American consumers.”

“Instead, if the additional tariffs are imposed at either the 10 percent or 25 percent level on roofing nails, the U.S. housing and construction industries will bear the brunt of the cost increases, which they will eventually be forced to pass on to the U.S. home buyers.”

“Section 301 tariffs on these tariff headings will irreparably damage Dawson Tire’s operations and lead to terminations in our three (3) Midwest locations. We are already subject to significant AD/CVD measures on these product lines. lf these products were subject to an additional 10%-25% ad valorem duty, we would no longer have the ability to be competitive in the market. Consequently, Dawson Tire would be required to terminate four (4) sales staff, two (2) account managers and three (3) production staff. Total loss in earnings and benefits for these positions would be more than $720,000 annually.”

“The bottom line is that NEMO, our retailers, and our consumers will pay more for these products due to the new tariffs, reducing overall sales, engendering customer dissatisfaction, and potentially triggering a loss of brand loyalty. It’s a lose/lose situation.”

“Above all, these tariffs will undoubtedly and immediately raise prices for customers who rely on these modestly-priced sporting goods in order to maintain an active, healthy lifestyle while playing sports in a safe manner. This would discourage participation in many sports and activities necessary for physical wellbeing by raising the cost of participation. And above all, it would raise the price, and discourage athletes from using these essential safety products in high-contact activities.”

“The imposition of additional tariffs (at any level) would force Colex to raise prices and endure cuts to its margins, which would potentially result in layoffs to reflect the reduction of business.”

“Given the limitations on the sourcing of vaping devices, a 10% tariff on imports from China would result in increased costs for Logic and its U.S. customers (as well as the consumers of other vaping devices and related products manufactured in China). Logic’s imports of parts for vaping devices directly support nearly 60 employees at its locations in New Jersey and Florida. There are thousands of vape stores in the United States, nearly all of which are small and medium-sized businesses, whose employees are solely dependent on vapor products, the majority imported from China.”

A 25% tariff will push our border taxes from a low of 41% to a high of 53% . Not only would it make our product non-saleable, this tariff increase would embolden the counterfeiters and reverse the progress we have achieved. Wedding gowns would rise in retail price by $400 to $500 at a minimum… Right now we pay over $3 million in duties to the government. That is more money than our profit before tax. Additional tariffs would drive this up to $4.5 million and will bankrupt my company.”

“The higher prices Horizon would be forced to pay would have a tremendous negative impact on U.S. consumers. Horizon could absorb only a portion of the increased costs, and the rest would be passed on to the consumer. These are not high-priced items, but rather educational toys and tools that have an average cost of approximately $5.00. More l likely than not, the imposition of tariffs forces the company to face the very real possibility that after 100 plus years it will be forced out of business.”

“If the proposed tariffs are implemented, Firmenich will have no choice but to pass a portion of these costs on to our US customers, who in turn, will pass them on to the end consumer. This is in direct opposition to the intended purpose of these tariffs.  The additional monies spent on duties would limit the company’s ability to invest in various business activities such as research and development and hiring additional staff… The consequence of these tariffs could result in moving production overseas and loss of American jobs.”

“Our company has no profit margin to absorb the administration’s tariffs and instead we are being forced to pass on the cost to the consumer or reduce our workforce. The livelihood of our manufacturing, design and development, logistics, sales teams, warehouse and distribution teams — throughout the entire job chain in the U.S. operations—is at risk as a result of these tariffs.”

“Campbell is driven and inspired by our purpose: Real food that matters for life’s moments. We believe that food should always be delicious, safe and available at a fair price—all three without compromise. Tariffs of 10-25% on [**********] from China would cost Campbell over [****] in incremental cost per year, primarily [****]. For the US [*****.] Alternatively, [*****.]”

“Tariffs on silica gel will increase primary raw material costs, increase prices charged to Clariant customers, and are leading to retaliatory tariffs on the export of products made at the Belen plant. Competitors already appear to have shifted some production offshore. In sum, imposing a punitive tariff on the silica get (HTSUS 2811.22.10) needed for manufacturing at Clariant’s Belen site will adversely impact our competitiveness in the global market and may threaten the long-term viability of the Belen production and consequently U.S. jobs.”

“A tariff of 10 or 25 percent imposed on these items would dramatically increase our costs and would likely result in the loss of high paying jobs at our Reno, NV distribution center and increase prices for U.S. consumers. These tariffs would have no real impact on China.”

“The overall negative impact on Server Technology’s business operation is summarized as follows: 1. Passing along costs to customers would be a significant competitive disadvantage. Server Technology’s top competitors do not produce their merchandise in China and therefore increased duties will not have the same impact on them. [ ] 2. The added expense of the proposed 301 sanctions would impede the investments in necessary capital equipment and personnel required for the growth of the company. 3. There would need to be a reduction in the number employees at Server Technology to mitigate the increase in additional duties caused by the sanctions.”

“Finally, these products help increase U.S. commerce by complementing and completing Century, Everlast, and Vertical Lax product lines and allow them to offer a full range of products to our U.S. and global customers. Without these products, Century, Everlast, and Vertical Lax would not be able to provide the full range desired by our customers, and, as many customers desire the “one-stop shopping” that a full range supplier affords, the proposed tariff threatens their supply of U.S. manufactured product to these customers. In addition, U.S. commerce also benefits from these products because the administrative operations and research and development facilities are located in the U.S., thereby providing additional employment. The above-mentioned tariffs further threaten these jobs as these members will be forced to either absorb the increased costs caused by the tariffs and face cut-backs in additional investment, essential business activities such as research and development, and employment, or pass the extra costs to consumers.”

“The imposition of additional duties on Cudlies products from China will cause irreparable harm to the US economy, our industry, our company and our employees since we cannot absorb the related tariffs without raising our prices. Diaper bags and bibs are two product categories that would be impacted by this proposed tariff. These items are a necessity for young families, many of which are already struggling to make ends meet. It is likely that consumers will be unwilling or unable to absorb the entire cost increase, thereby putting our corporate survival in jeopardy.”

“The proposed action will result in reduced sales. The extra duty of $$0.17 per unit, on average cannot be absorbed by DC Safety or its Automotive OEM customers and translates to a cost increase of $0.51 to $0.68 to the final consumer for a typical safety kit. This represents a cost increase to American consumers of $9,000 to $12,000 USD and may result in a loss of sales and possible deletion of items from new vehicles… All of the kits that DC Safety supplies including slip joint pliers are assembled in the USA by our American workforce; the likely reduction in unit sales resulting from the proposed additional duties puts some number of our 68 American workers at risk of job loss.”

“The above-mentioned tariffs further threaten these jobs as Everlast will be forced to either absorb the increased costs caused by the tariffs and face cutbacks in additional investment, essential business activities such as research and development, and employment, or pass the extra costs to consumers.”

“The tariffs, which are framed as a measure to help American companies compete in the global marketplace, have the potential to cause calamitous harm to our business. We do not believe that is the intention. We do, however, believe that a lack of understanding about how a business like ours functions may have obscured the impact these tariffs will have…The total anticipated cost of the tariffs to our small business is $74,946.45 for approximately every 2,000 computers we build in 2018 alone.”

“The proposed tariffs would have a disproportionate economic impact on Richloom and its U.S. customers by raising prices and threatening supply of fabric products that are not available from alternative sources… The proposed tariffs would economically disadvantage thousands of American workers employed by Richloom and its U.S. manufacturing customers. The tariffs would have the opposite of their intended impact: pushing U.S. manufacturing jobs off-shore and endangering the 250 Richloom employees that support U.S. manufacturers.”

“We please ask your sincere consideration in the exclusion of the specific subject product for the following reasons creating disproportionate harm to USA interests: • Negative Impact to American Worker Jobs: Failure to exclude this product will result in job loss in the following states: New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina. It will also have a negative impact on jobs in China who work for Columbus McKinnon. Instead of adding high paying manufacturing jobs to the American economy, a stated goal of President Trump, tariff on this product will cost jobs.”

“Additional duties on products imported by Kodak Alaris from China, including, in particular, optical scanner parts and photochemical products, would have a disproportionately negative impact on U.S. federal, state, and local governments, U.S. consumers, and small- and medium-sized businesses in the United States. In that regard, Kodak Alaris cannot absorb a 10 to 25 percent increase in costs for its optical scanner parts or photochemical products and would be forced to pass additional costs on to its customers.”

“Second, imposing a ten percent (10%) or twenty-five percent (25%) tariff on the products imported under these tariff lines would have a negative effect on both American jobs and Inno-Pak, LLC’s investments in the United States. Inno-Pak, LLC has entered term and price fixed supply contracts with many of its customers. Accordingly, Inno-Pak, LLC has agreed to supply a certain number of products, at a set price, for a set number of months or years. With tight profit margins, imposing an unforeseen ten or twenty-five percent tariff on these products would convert Inno-Pak, LLC’s supply contracts from being profitable to being unprofitable because Inno-Pak, LLC would be forced to sell products at a loss. Furthermore, 60-70% of Inno-Pak, LLC’s annual revenue is generated by sales of products that are imported under these tariff lines and, therefore, the proposed tariff would adversely affect a majority of not only Inno-Pak, LLC’s annual revenue but its annual profit. Consequently, the proposed tariffs would jeopardize Inno-pak, LLC’s ability to maintain its labor force at current levels…”

“The tariff increase as currently recommended will unfortunately have to be passed along to the US consumer… The cost increase proposed with the new tariff is difficult to absorb and will likely result in a reduction in sales and market share, and may result in potential negative employment implications.”

“This additional 25% tariff will increase average retail prices of bicycles sold in the mass retail segment, which represents 85% of the bicycle industry unit volume, by increasing the average retail price from $100 per bike to $125 per bike. The average retail price for a bicycle in the independent bike dealership is $500 which equates to a $125 price increase from $500 to $625 per bike. These are extraordinary price increases for middle class Americans who make up the clear majority of our riders…This proposed tariff will have a devasting impact on bicycle sales as consumer demand will plummet. MORE IMPORTANTLY, it will devastate the American bicycle industry across all segments disproportionately impacting 4,000 independent bicycle dealers whose very livelihood depends on the sale of bicycles.”

“If a 25% tariff is instituted on merchandise classified under HTSUS Code 7010.20.20, 7010.90.50, and 9405.50.40 products, candle-manufacturers such as Luminex will have no choice but to substantially increase the prices of its products in order to compensate for the additional production cost… In effect, if Candle Accessories remain within the scope of the Proposed Modification, Luminex will be forced to start importing finished candle products and to correspondingly reduce its own domestic production and workforce.”

“First, Petland’s position is that its products should not be covered or subject to these duties as the products described above are for a limited market purpose and increasing the costs of these products will negatively impact the U.S. company and endanger American jobs at Petland”

“Should the USTR decide to include the Auto Glass Products in the Proposed Action, we and our American customers — car manufacturers and aftermarket auto part suppliers — will be faced with a variety of problems ranging from supply disruption, exorbitant cost increases, threat of labor reduction, and inability to compete with non-Chinese foreign auto and auto part suppliers. Worst of all, the American public will be forced to pay substantially more for purchasing or maintaining a basic necessity for their automobiles.”

“As one of America’s oldest and most trusted companies and brands, ScottsMiracle-Gro agrees with the Administration that it is critical to invest in US competitiveness and protect against unfair trade practices; however, the proposed implementation will disproportionately burden American businesses and consumers and will limit the cost competitiveness of emerging products in the market’s most innovative platforms. To add such a significant cost increase and more financial burden that will inevitably be passed through to families of consumers, many of whom are already struggling to pay their bills in a still yet recovering economy, seems punitive and unnecessary in light of the goals and findings of the Section 301 investigation.”

“Cooper Tire believes in free and fair trade. Cooper Tire opposes both the inclusion of the two HTSUS codes covering tires and any additional tariffs on tires in this Section 301 investigation. Cooper Tire would be burdened by a 10% additional tariff on the tires it imports from China under both of these HTSUS codes, and would be particularly burdened by a 25% additional tariff on such tires… Some constraints on imports of these tires from China already are in place, and Section 301 duties on these tires would only cause serious harm to American companies, put American jobs at risks, and ultimately place the burden of increased costs on U.S. consumers of tires.”

“Evenflo’s manual breast pumps are not available from sources outside of China and are not a priority for Made in China 2025.Imposing the additional duty – whether it is 10 or 25 percent – would cause severe economic harm not only to Evenflo Feeding but also to the nursing mothers who need an affordable, high-quality pump to provide breast milk for their children.”

“Finally, these products help increase U.S. commerce by complementing and completing Century, Everlast, and Vertical Lax product lines and allow them to offer a full range of products to our U.S. and global customers. Without these products, Century, Everlast, and Vertical Lax would not be able to provide the full range desired by our customers, and, as many customers desire the “one-stop shopping” that a full range supplier affords, the proposed tariff threatens their supply of U.S. manufactured product to these customers. In addition, U.S. commerce also benefits from these products because the administrative operations and research and development facilities are located in the U.S., thereby providing additional employment. The above-mentioned tariffs further threaten these jobs as these members will be forced to either absorb the increased costs caused by the tariffs and face cut-backs in additional investment, essential business activities such as research and development, and employment, or pass the extra costs to consumers.”

“The additional costs will close our small family business.”

“I’ve worked over 20 years of my life at Clark Seals, and I really do not like the government creating a competitive advantage for all other Asian countries, while singling out China. Because of this duty, it could close the American Business I work for down, by indirectly creating an advantage for other Asian countries to step in. I’m pleading that HTS 4016935020 Oil Seals be exempted from a 10% duty coming from China. This duty would cost Clark Seals severe economic harm, and because of this, we request exemption.”

“The added tariff costs alone from continuing to purchase these items under the proposed Section 301 tariffs would be upwards of $5M over the next few years… The imposition of the tariffs would put undue pressures on the cost of producing our pest management tools, which could render these products unaffordable for many of our small- and medium-sized customers. The potential Section 301 tariff increases creates a huge risk for Suterra as a company. The increased financial burden would negatively impact our ability to produce a marketable product for the hundreds of famers who rely on it, which in turn, would threaten the very existence of Suterra’s business in the United States.”

“Should the proposed 301 tariffs be implemented, the additional duty would be directly passed onto the consumer as there is no time to plan and execute alternate solutions. There would be no future investments in the next five plus years as Yakima would be seeking to survive the financial devastation of the tariffs. Additionally, we expect the tariffs to have a chilling effect upon our sales revenue and profit margins, which would require us to adjust our workforce accordingly. In summary, the proposed additional duties will negatively impact our sales, reduce corporate spending and investment in projects, and ultimately affect the number of employees we have, without any corresponding adverse consequence to China’s industrial base.”

“We would like to address the committee to petition that, by imposing increased duties on the items discussed below, it will severely strain Blount’s ability to continue producing in the U.S. using American labor. As part of our testimony, we will detail why it is in the United States’ best economic interests to remove the below items from the final List 3 categories subject to the additional ten-percent (10%) or twenty-five percent (25%) tariff.In fact, the imposition of tariffs on Blount’s products may cause job losses in the United States and could negatively affect other industries that rely on this category of finished goods.”

“Honestly, we can not take the hit for the increase in price and living in a ‘lower’ income area, my customers can not and will not pay for the increase in price per yard that I will have to add. 8 Years in business now and we are not huge, just a “Mom and Pops” quilt shop in the small town of Dillard, Oregon. We have tried so hard to keep prices down so everyone can sew and enjoy the rise in self confidence and it is awesome to see how proud new comers are to create something. I see this going away not only from shop but from many shops that their clientele can’t absorb the increase that these tariffs are going to create.”

“Bike share companies across the country rely on China for sturdy, high-quality bike share bikes and parts. Bike share in this country never would have been possible without it. The reality is that we do not have the manufacturing capability domestically to produce bike share bikes at the level of quality and volume that we need, as much as it would be nice to have a US-made product. The company that I work for even had to fold just the US assembly portion of our production (assembling Chinese parts at a US factory) because there were too many quality control problems, so now we are outsourcing the entire bike manufacturing process to China. We rely on Chinese bikes for our system here, and I can’t imagine how we could stay in business if the cost per bike went higher than the $1600/unit we currently pay.”

“I represent a small business called Shwood Eyewear we manufacture sunglasses and optical frames in the US as well as many parts in China. We have very tight margins and make less than industry standard due to our manufacturing costs and quality checks in the USA. We are proud to have operations in Portland, Oregon but like I said we have tight margins on our products. We purchase our sunglass and eyeglass cases and boxes from our factory partner in China and it is important to continue receiving these cases from this factory as the item is complete to build and used machinery and techniques we cannot replicate in our facility. A 10% increase on every box/case would hurt our margin significantly as we already push the budget of our packaging to provide world-class packaging to our customers.”

“China is a major source of finished fish fillets. Many are ‘reprocessed’ with raw materials from USA fishing industry. An increased cost to the end user is likely to slow consumption of fish thereby hurting our domestic fishing industry. Aquaculture from China puts inexpensive but high quality fish protein in reach of American consumers. It is well known that the medical community recommends seafood consumption as a matter of healthy lifestyle. Reduced consumption related to increased price works against this common medical advise. Closer to home, our company employs 11 full time American employees as has been an employer in our area for over 30 years. A tariff that decreases our volume, puts these jobs in jeopardy.”

“Should the tariff subheadings listed below not be removed from the Annex, twenty-six percent of Connection Chemical’s sales will be impacted by the proposed tariffs. Product we are able to source outside of China will be at a cost to the consumer. Approximately 35 percent of this 26 percent will be lost sales directly related to HTS Codes 2809.20.00 and 2835.39.50 as we will be at an economic disadvantage and will no longer be competitive in the U.S. Phosphoric and Polyphosphate market. As a result, our company will suffer a direct loss of 10 percent in sales and profits, slowing our historic year over year growth, impacting our strategic plan, and postponing the hiring of two additional employees… When including businesses that supply chemical distributors and those who depend on respending by direct and supplier firm employees, a total of nearly 2,500 lost jobs and $147.7 million in lost wages are at stake. The cost to the American economy in the chemical distribution industry could be nearly $453.6 million.”

“Thus, the application of the tariff to HFC components results only in a tax on U.S. manufacturing and U.S. consumers. Moreover, the application of additional duties to the HFC components imported under 2903.39.20 would disproportionately affect and disadvantage small- and medium-sized businesses, and U.S. consumers. The only parties that would benefit are the large-sized businesses, Honeywell, DuPont/Chemours, and Arkema that produce the HFC components in the United States.”

“The imposition of Section 301 tariffs on such products would threaten U.S. manufacturing jobs and innovation by substantially increasing the costs of high quality D-10 treated wood and vinyl flooring to U.S. businesses and consumers. Moreover, because Armstrong Flooring’s D-10 coating is a one of a kind solution, additional Section 301 tariffs would simply drive up the cost of Armstrong Flooring’s imported and domestically manufactured products for commercial and residential U.S. consumers of the Company’s products… If the proposed tariffs are applied to diamond dust and commercial sheet vinyl flooring, Armstrong Flooring estimates that the higher costs may lead to the loss of more than 100 jobs and prevent future job creation due to Armstrong Flooring’s customers reducing purchases of Armstrong Flooring’s D-10 coated flooring products.”

“The tariffs would increase the end price of our OEM customers’ equipment. In the healthcare context, this means higher costs to healthcare providers which ultimately means consumers pay more in medical procedures, laboratory testing and health insurance. Similar damaging cost increases would occur across other US industries. [ ] office furniture dealers, as well as architects, designers and installer companies would be affected, in addition to our employees and the many independent sales representatives who work with us.”

“Teknor Apex supports the Administration’s efforts to confront and eliminate China’s intellectual property rights and violations but applying tariffs to basic materials and components used in the manufacturing of a zero-G garden hose will not have the desire effect of curtailing these unfair practices. To impose current and future additional tariffs would force us to raise prices to retailers significantly that would bring up the possibility of zero-G being priced out of the marketplace.”

“In preparation for the proposed tariffs, we have raised our prices. Since doing so we have seen a significant decrease in sales. The size of these tariffs increases our cost dramatically, making it impossible to absorb, and as such we have to pass this cost along to our customers. The products we offer have no relation to the unreasonable trade practices that the recent USTR investigation found China’s government engages in. We are a small business, and the factories that we work with are similarly small in scale. Reef Breeders LLC has dedicated a great deal of time and resources in building a USA based warranty service and distribution center in Wakefield, RI USA. These new tariffs jeopardize our operations and could very well cause us to go out of business.”

“The Chemical Company opposes the tariffs as any additional tariffs upon Chinese imports would result in higher prices for American consumers, higher costs for U.S. manufacturers, decreased demand for U.S. exports, and ultimately result in fewer jobs for American workers.”

“The company has been able to survive swings in the economy by creating a diversified product line. However, diversification does not protect against additional tariffs to all raw materials imported from China. Nation Ford Chemical is increasingly concerned that the U.S. chemical manufacturing sector’s recently-acquired competitive advantage will be lost if a 25 percent tariff is levied on certain chemicals from China.”

“As a relatively small business, the direct financial impact of the 25% tariffs, which apply to a majority of our product lines, will significantly harm our business, regardless of whether we select to absorb the costs or pass them through to our customers. If we select to absorb the additional costs in order to remain competitive with much larger companies who will be able to withstand such variances in their larger portfolios of business, our company profitability is completely eliminated. If, on the other hand, we select to pass on the additional cost to our business customers, which is a very large majority of our business, Cleva will not be able to compete in the marketplace against the pricing of those much larger competitors who can absorb the tariff impacts, and therefore we will lose a market share which has been hard fought ground. Either way, our small company will be in extreme jeopardy.”

“Shakespeare respectfully requests the removal of the 8-digit HTS 2917.13.00 and 8467.99.01 subheadings from the proposed Annex for 10 to 25% tariffs. Each of these HTS subheadings cover basic goods for consumers designed for lawn care and used by everyday Americans as well as small business owners and even city maintenance departments. Healthy lawns and public grassy areas benefit the entire country by contributing to cleaner air and water, noise reduction, providing cooler temperatures than hard surfaces, increasing property values and allowing citizens places to relax and recreate – which in turn strengthens social connections within a community and improves both physical and mental health of citizens. Taxing products that can provide all of these benefits would be a detriment to our entire country. These proposed tariffs will have little to no impact on China. The tariffs will only hurt Americans in more ways than simply increasing costs of goods.”

“As described above, there is insufficient supply outside of China to handle the demand of electronic passive components as described above. In the first place, as a result of increased tariffs, WE may lose business if a competitor has an established supply other than China. In addition, because of higher duties, WE may be forced to consider moving inventory from the US to Mexico or Canada and partner with customers to determine solutions to building their products outside of the US. This would therefore decrease American employment and financial turnover. In addition, given the competitive nature of the business, WE would not be able to absorb the additional cost and would be obliged to pass it on in the form of higher prices to our American customers. The U.S. made goods into which our products are incorporated would no doubt see a price increase as well which would be passed along to the ultimate U.S. consumer.”

“Super Grip’s 25 loyal employees have strived, despite the financial difficulties resulting from the antidumping and countervailing duties on OTR tires, the downturn in the coal mining industry, and the lengthy financial recovery following the 2008 financial crisis, to preserve this legacy for Mr. Christenberry’s son. Super Grip, as an employer of 25 people, in eastern Tennessee, is also important to the region’s economy… s. Each of these industries would suffer severe economic harm if Super Grip is forced to raise prices or exit the industry as a result of the 25% additional tariffs.”

“And, even more notably, as explained above, the tariff will directly affect consumers who will experience higher prices and supply shortages. Above all, these tariffs will undoubtedly and immediately raise prices for customers who rely on modestly-priced sporting goods in order to maintain an active, healthy lifestyle. This would discourage participation in many sports and activities necessary for physical wellbeing by raising the costs of participation.”

“The proposed Section 301 tariffs will cause Drexel to lose its markets and its business, leading to plant closures and layoffs of up to two-thirds of Drexel’s employees.”

“Why should companies such as BPI and our two Chinese partners be penalized by Tariffs when we are doing all the right things?”

“Pitney Bowes postage meters are used by over 700,000 small and midsized business owners in the United States who use the U.S. Postal Service to communicate with customers, suppliers and service providers. These businesses purchase over $10 Billion in postage from the Postal Service each year, or approximately 15% of the U.S. Postal Services annual total revenue. This represents a very important and significant revenue stream for the Postal Service. The imposition of a 10 – 25% tariff on these postage meters and parts would have a direct and immediate impact on the cost of the postage meters. This would lead to a decrease in the use of these postage meters, thus directly injuring the fiscal health of the U.S. Postal Service, and the small and midsized businesses who used these postage meters.”

“Moreover, the harmful effects will not be limited to those who import under subheading 3806.99.00. Because modified rosins are intermediate materials incorporated into a wide assortment of other products, it can be expected that the price increases will be borne by manufacturers, retailers, and consumers of those products… As mentioned, Eastman’s polymerized and dimerized rosins are used to produce solders for the manufacture of printed circuit boards, which are used downstream in the production of numerous high-tech household electronic devices. Implementing the proposed tariffs would likely raise production costs both for vendors of solders and their downstream customers, which manufacture the high-tech products in which printed circuit boards are used. This would in turn deprive these manufacturers of resources that could be used for research and development of new technologies, consequentially stifling growth in this sector. Moreover, it would likely increase retail prices of existing electronic appliances that have become integrated into — and indispensable to — the personal and professional lives of U.S. consumers. These are just some of the products, along with others like paint, tape, tires, and floor tiles, for which consumers may be forced to pay higher prices. Many of these items are household necessities that average consumers cannot simply forego. Imposing tariffs to the detriment of U.S.” businesses, consumers, and domestic economic growth generally, and with little or no impact on China’s industrial policies, is indeed contrary to the objectives of USTR’s proposed action.”

“A new 10% duty would have been extremely difficult to absorb for a company of our size. With the increase in duty to 25%, we will have no choice but to immediately reduce staffing and attempt to raise prices. Raising our prices is particularly problematic as our biggest customer is 18-35, male and on a limited income. As a company, we have always tried to position ourselves as suppliers of really exciting and functional gear at affordable prices.”

“PulseTech appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed 25 percent duty increase. PulseTech recommends that USTR consider alternative policy options to address China’s unfair trade practices that do not involve increasing costs on U.S. consumers, U.S. businesses, and suppliers to the U.S. military.”

“The bottom line is that prohibitive tariffs on rugs, for which no issues have been raised about abusive intellectual property rights practices by China, is both misdirected and harmful. Duties on these products simply shoot ourselves in the foot, harming already vulnerable businesses, jeopardizing U.S. jobs and limiting consumer choice and affordability.”

“By punishing American innovators like Helen of Troy, LP and its third party designers, the proposed tariffs run counter to their intended goal of protecting U.S. technology and intellectual property rights. Second, the proposed tariffs will have a significant impact on U.S. consumers. By way of example, in 2017, China accounted for over 80% of all exports to the United States under subheading 5609.00.40, based on data from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Accordingly, imposing substantial tariffs on the ponytail holders will lead to shortfalls and price surges in the U.S. market.”

“In effect, U.S. consumers would be doubly taxed for their Internet usage as a result of the proposed duties. Moreover, once prices for networking products increase due to the additional duties, our customers in the United States would invest less in their networking infrastructure, thereby impeding U.S. productivity growth and reducing the number of ICT-related jobs in non-ICT industries.”

“We sell caskets wholesale to funeral homes locally and in different states throughout the US. We have very low margins and if we are subject to the 10%-25% tariff it would cause a great loss to Centennial Casket Corporation to have to increase the cost of our caskets. The increased cost would also affect our funeral homes who deal directly with grieving families purchasing caskets for their loved ones at one of the worse times of their life. We are requesting that you consider the huge loss that would affect our company therefore we are asking you to remove our product from the proposed tariff increase.”

“Coyote has more than 7000 active customers of our outdoor cooking and storage products, virtually all of whom use these items as meaningful product offerings to the domestic building industry and/or to the U.S. retail consumer. Those companies would also be devastated by the imposition of punitive tariffs. In addition, end users would be affected (such as home and building owners), as well as the accompanying construction and real estate industries. Coyote’s products are normally incorporated into large construction and remodeling projects, so the effect of the tariffs will ripple well beyond Coyote into numerous other downstream industries. The overall economic impact of punitive tariffs on these items is impossible to quantify, but it would be immense.”

“Our company, Ocean Star International, Inc., already pays local, State of Utah and Federal corporate taxes. In addition to these we also pay a royalty to the State of Utah for the eggs of several hundred thousand dollars. For a small company such as ours (about 120 employees), this tariff would deeply cut into our net profit and will cause us to have to reduce staff.”

“And, even more notably, as explained above, the tariff will directly affect consumers who will experience higher prices and supply shortages. Above all, these tariffs will undoubtedly and immediately raise prices for customers who rely on modestly-priced sporting goods in order to maintain an active, healthy lifestyle. This would discourage participation in many sports and activities necessary for physical wellbeing by raising the costs of participation.”

“A 25% tariff would increase our annual duties by $1.1M. We cannot sustain this increase and will have to pass along the increase to our customers and potentially decrease our US labor force.”

“Imposing tariffs on these products will negatively impact our business and American consumers. It will not advance the Administration’s goal to motivate China to change its discriminatory practices toward intellectual property and data transfers. Instead, the additional duties will cause disproportional harm to not only Camp Chef, but to the entire outdoor cooking industry and its backyard cooking enthusiasts. Absorbing the proposed additional duty cost is not feasible for most businesses, especially small companies like Camp Chef. A large portion will unfortunately have to be passed through to our distributers and consumers vis-à-vis higher retailer prices. A 10 to 25% tariff does not translate into a straight 10 to 25% retail price increase.”

“While a tariff on ATMs would have little or no ‘leverage’ value within the U.S.-China trade relationship, it would reduce the access to banking services and government benefits currently enjoyed by the most vulnerable Americans and would disproportionately harm small and medium sized enterprises… In addition to the more targeted harms, the effect of reduced ATM deployment on America’s retail economy generally would be substantial and would alone be sufficient to justify taking ATMs off the retaliation list.”

“As a result, the proposed tariff increase will harm U.S. consumers, especially workers and their small- and medium-businesses in the U.S., and ultimately the U.S. economy. Because China is the primary source for Aluminum Ladders, U.S. consumers, including families and small- and medium-businesses, will inevitably bear the higher price of Aluminum Ladders as a result of any additional tariffs. More importantly, the increased cost will lead some U.S. consumers to forego replacing worn out and broken ladders with new and safer ladders, which will lead to more injuries and fatalities both at home and at work.”

“As a result of lost market share due to price increases and, where price increases were not possible, margin reduction due to costs increases Kollmorgen would suffer a loss of profitability that would have profound effects to US shareholders and employees including stock price, dividends, salary freeze, non-payment of bonuses, hiring freezes, defunding R&D and ultimately workforce reduction.”

“Imposing duties on these three tariff lines will increase our cost of goods, and in order to maintain our profitability we will pass on these increased costs to our customers. Upholstered furniture accounts for roughly 20-30 percent of our merchandise sales, and nearly every upholstery item we sell would see some price increase because of the proposed tariffs. For example, one of our best-selling reclining sofas, which is imported from China, retails at $749.95. We anticipate that a 25 percent tariff would lead to a retail price increase of $150. Even a 10 percent tariff would result in a retail price increase of $75. Similarly, one of our most popular stationary sofas, which is manufactured in the southern United States using a kit imported from China, retails at $549.95. We estimate a 25 percent tariff on the kit would increase the retail price on this item by about $25.”

“We anticipate that the proposed additional duties may translate to slower sales growth at our stores, which will eventually impact our need to hire new associates at existing stores or even slow new store growth.”

“Simply put, the cost of imposing tariffs on gantry cranes poses a significant risk to continued economic growth for the communities of Virginia and beyond as well as the national economy by threatening a major East Coast port project. Putting a 25% duty on these high-cost, low tech pieces of equipment would do nothing to address China’s egregious violations of intellectual property and forced technology transfers. Nor would it address its “Made in China 2025” policy, especially since the cranes – while important to the project – are low tech. It would also run counter to the President’s important strategic objective of “Building a Stronger America” to modernize and improve its national infrastructure.”

“We are a very small 36 year old headwear company that employees 42 people in rural Vermont. The proposed increases of an additional 10 percent tariff and or raising the tariff to 25 percent would put us out of business. Returning the production of our products to the US is not feasible. The US lacks domestic raw materials, skilled sewing operators and the economic structure to produce a product the American consumer will be able to afford. The 42 families impacted by this proposal should not be sacrificed and thought of as pawns. They need their jobs. Please, please, do no put us out of business.”

“The dimming effect of the Section 301 duties will be felt throughout our company and our workforce and deprive us of the ability to continue manufacturing our products domestically. If these tariffs were to be implemented, Hubbardton Forge would likely have to increase the cost of our fixtures to our customers to cover this unforeseen cost at a time when we are making efforts to ensure our competitiveness by minimizing price increases. It is possible that with focused efforts and additional overhead costs we could move some of these custom lamp parts to other countries, or possibly domestic producers, but it would either increase the total component cost by even more than the proposed 10-25% tariff, or drive heavy investment in new tooling costs. as tooling is not transferrable between suppliers in different countries.”

“Headwear is not known to be a commodity with a large profit margin as-is; imposing additional 25% duties on top of the current average 7% duties will, without a doubt, be passed on to US consumers, as China is the dominant supplier of these items.”

“A tariff of 10% or higher on the import of packaging material under code 4811.51 would make our business uneconomic, and will immediately cast the industry we serve back into monopoly supply. This would be to the great detriment of American producers who are competing on the international market with other producers.”

“These proposed increases in fabric costs…if passed onto stores and ultimately to our customers…will severely hurt our fabric sales and businesses. Please don’t let this happen or it will be putting a lot of small business owners out of business!”

“That means that a 25% punitive tariff would force us to raise our prices significantly, making us no longer competitive. Our customers would just stop buying our products. This would not just hurt our business, but could destroy our business, throwing our employees out of work while significantly increasing the retail prices to U.S. consumers for our products. It would destroy small businesses that 99.7 % of the American Economy is built on.”

“Quite simply, imports of beer taps are not relevant to this section 301 dispute, and imposition of tariffs on tap handles under section 301 is not appropriate and will not further USTR’s goals. Moreover, by proposing to impose tariffs on such a large volume of imports into the United States, USTR has ensured that the section 301 tariffs will hurt U.S. businesses, including small-to-medium size businesses such as Taphandles.”

“Ocean Beauty will be negatively affected by denying access to the China domestic market due to tariffs. However, it is the tax on the import of US produced product that has only been further processed in China, that threatens the future profitability of the Alaska salmon business the most. The USA has been an excellent market for our value-added products. We fear they will• now be replaced with fish caught and processed in other countries because it will be a more attractive price point that we can afford due to these new tariffs. Your immediate attention to this matter and granting hardship reprieve from these tariffs is both critical and essential. Thousands of jobs in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington are awaiting your favorable decision.”

“We are concerned that the tariffs will threaten our existence as a small business, raise consumer prices and eliminate product selection and sales. These tariffs will harm our business, hinder the business of our customers and negatively impact the American consumer.”

“In summary, there is no equivalent US manufacturer of ship-to-shore cranes and there are few alternatives to Chinese manufacturers globally. The tariffs will result in unnecessary expenditures of additional public funds by port authorities nationwide. Every additional dollar we spend in tariffs diminishes the amount of funding we can direct to other needed infrastructure improvements. The tariffs would affect the competitive position of the ports of Seattle and Tacoma and could cause economic harm to our region and nation.”

“Because of our relationship with factories in China, the proposed 25% tariff will impact a huge portion of the products we sell. Should this tariff become law, we will suffer greatly as a company, and consequently as a community. I earnestly request that this proposed tariff be canceled.”

“Many of these products are already subject to a heavy duty. The proposed additional duty on these products would cost ECM millions of dollars in increased duties. For example, the proposed additional 10 or 25 percent duty applied to our products on list 3 will cost ECM over a half million dollars per year. These additional unexpected costs for our small business are layered on top of the detrimental impacts from the Section 301 tariffs already imposed on our products on lists 1 and 2 that total over $3 million. Overall, these Section 301 and 307 tariffs cripple ECM, forcing ECM to reduce its workforce in the U.S. to afford these tariffs… As of July 6, 2018, we have implemented a hiring freeze and are only replacing critical positions as a result of attrition. If all of the Section 301 and 307 tariffs remain, we will be forced to reduce our headcount by 50 to 60 people in order to offset the costs to our bottom line.”

“In the case of Trek, the likely effect of the proposed tariffs will be higher prices for our goods, and in turn, fewer sales of our products. This risks the 2,600 jobs that Trek directly provides, and the thousands of jobs provided by 1,600 independent retailers that sell our products.”

“America’s homeowners and do-it-yourselfers will also feel the brunt of these price increases. The tariffs would spike prices 10-25%, hitting millions of thrifty middle income Americans who seek to fix a leak or repair a broken lock. The large box stores have indicated they fully expect to pass tariff price increases along to their customers. This is particularly devastating for the consumers we reach, precisely because most have modest incomes… Tariffs on the below products will also cost American jobs. The Chinese facilities of Spectrum Brands are integrally tied to American jobs here at home. For example, Spectrum Brands has an advanced manufacturing facility in Denison, Texas, which sources raw materials in the U.S., fabricates and die casts those components, then ships them to China to be incorporate into our locks.”

“These raw materials are crucial to the production of iron, steel and aluminum in the U.S. and are not readily available from any domestic source. The tariff surcharge would be passed on to the metal producers as a direct increase, thus reducing the competitiveness of our iron, steel, alloys, and aluminum industries… On a small scale, our company would be affected as we process many of these materials in West Virginia which created about 25 direct jobs, but the indirect cost increase would affect all upstream activities including inland freight, steelmaking, aluminum production, alloy production, etc. which can impact thousands of American jobs.”

“I am requesting to eliminate the proposed tariffs on 5208.52.30 5208.52.40 5208.52-50. I am a small quilt fabric business in Thermopolis, Wyoming, and the life of my business is dangerously threatened by the proposed tariffs. My husband and I sunk our entire savings (401K and annuities) into this business three years ago, and only now is it looking like we MIGHT see a small return on our investment. I have worked this business with no salary or payback this entire time, and raising our prices by the proposed percentages will devastate the business and ruin us financially.”