Is the soybean certification tariff for Feima paid by the buyer or the seller?

These two days, as Peak Pegasus began to unload at Dalian Port, this online celebrity soybean ship once again became the focus of public opinion. However, this time, everyone is concerned: who paid the tariff of 6 million dollars? If the buyer really pays for food, isn't this extra tariff a boring loss for himself after a long time?

Network celebrity ship "Flying Horse Peak"

First, specious questioning.

Search with keywords such as "Feimafeng tariff" and "China grain storage soybean", and some emotional titles will appear: for example, "Feimafeng" enters the port to unload goods, and China grain storage pays 6 million US dollars tariff? "The American soybean ship finally unloaded! The buyer in China paid a tariff of 6 million US dollars for this ... Compared with the image of "a boat racing against time" and "the most inspirational boat of the year" and the image of "drifting for almost two months" in China waters, it is hard not to form a "plot reversal" in the public mind at this time.

Netizens hate those who can't make an iron, cynicism, skepticism, and all kinds of comments are rampant. The most representative are these voices:

"keep people out for more than a month, and the result is to pay the bill yourself";

"Lift a rock and drop it on your own feet, just to look good on your face";

"It is a waste of time to pay taxes yourself";

It is estimated that the liquidated damages are higher than the customs duties, so we have to pay them.

At first glance, there seems to be some truth.

Is it true?/You don't say.

Second, paying tariffs is a slap in the face?

According to our common people's thinking, the purpose of imposing tariffs is to give Americans a little color to see and let them suffer, so this account should naturally be included in the bow of American soybeans, otherwise this "pony" would not have to run so hard. If the buyer pays $6 million for grain storage, it won't be a slap in the face.

That was not the case.

Let's see who paid for it first.

According to reliable grain storage information, they did pay taxes, and the agreement came into effect at the beginning of this year, before the Sino-US trade war. As for the "Feimafeng" stranded in Dalian Port for more than a month, the objective reason is that the pressure on ships in the port is relatively concentrated, and the "Feimafeng" can only wait in line at the anchorage outside Dalian Port for unloading and customs clearance. Will soybeans become bean sprouts? This also underestimates the storage and temperature control ability of the cargo hold, and the goods are definitely no problem.

Now that the payment has been settled, does it mean that the grain storage has really become a "receiver" and a "big head"?

The most unreliable answer to this question is imagination.

First of all, who will pay the extra tariff on this ship of soybeans must be determined by the trade terms used by the buyers and sellers when signing the contract.

At present, the trade terms 1 1 in Incoterms 20 10 are widely used in international trade, namely, factory delivery, FCA, FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF, CPT, CIP, DAT, DAP and DDP. Among them, only under DDP terminology can the seller bear the greatest responsibility, including completing import customs clearance procedures and bearing import duties. DDP, delivered duty paid (designated destination), Chinese name for after-tax delivery (... designated destination). In addition, the rest of the price terms are import duties borne by the buyer.

That is to say, in the usual international trade, the import tariff was originally borne by the buyer. As the buyer of this ship's soybeans, China Grain Storage paid extra tariffs for this, and there was nothing special about it. It's just that the ship arrived in China Port on July 6th, when China and the United States imposed punitive tariffs, which made the original ordinary transaction have unusual significance.

Second, paying this grain storage tax is in full compliance with the legal requirements.

In media reports, there is often a saying that "(China Grain Storage) Company promises to pay various taxes and fees in accordance with relevant Chinese laws and effective tariff measures against the United States". Because of ambiguity, people can't help but suspect that this is just an excuse.

In fact, the "relevant laws of China" mentioned here is the Customs Law. According to Article 54 of Chapter V of People's Republic of China (PRC) Customs Law (revised edition 20 17): "The consignee of imported goods, the consignor of exported goods and the owner of inbound and outbound articles are taxpayers." In other words, legally speaking, it is also appropriate to pay for grain storage, and there is no reason to "admit" to help Americans pay.

Thirdly, since China's grain purchasing and storage is unreasonable, why didn't it respond publicly before?

This is because the unloading work is still going on-70,000 tons of soybeans have to go through a series of processes such as strict inspection and quarantine, unloading and transshipment, and loading, which would have taken time. According to the monitoring data of Marinetraffic.com, a global online ship tracking service website, on August 6th, Beijing time 1 1:59, the location of "Ma Feifeng" was still in Dalian Port (Yellow Sea) and the status was "moored". At 14:49 Beijing time, the state of the ship has changed to "sailing with engine", and the draft of the ship has also changed from the previous13m to 6.9m (the maximum draft depth of the ship is14.43m)-at this time, it seems that the unloading has been completed. Until then, nothing has been decided.

▲ The above are the tracking information of "Flying Horse Peak" at noon and afternoon respectively.

3. Is the tariff levied in vain?

Since the money has to be paid by our own people, Americans have not suffered! Is this tariff levied for nothing?

I can only say that this wave of hype is still wrong.

First of all, what is the nature of import tariffs? It is to raise trade barriers, thus protecting domestic industries and weakening the competitiveness of foreign industries.

Take this batch of soybeans as an example. Although it seems that the tariff is borne by the buyer this time, for the seller, the cost and price of this batch of goods have increased because of the extra tariff. Compared with the same quantity of products without tariffs, it loses market competitiveness and price advantage. In addition, the increased tariffs will directly affect the subsequent willingness to import and narrow its export market. After all, for export enterprises, it goes without saying which is more important, the single tariff or the future market.

Second, the price effect and terms of trade effect of tariffs are the influence of their policies.

According to the column of "Customs Knowledge" in official website of the Tariff Commission of the Ministry of Finance, the first two items are "price effect" and "terms of trade effect" respectively. What do you mean by that? In short, when the importing country imposes tariffs, the increase of its domestic price will lead to the decrease of the import quantity, and the producers or exporters of the exporting country will have to reduce the price of their export products to avoid cutting the export sales quantity too much and thus gain more export income. Therefore, the international market price of this commodity will fall.

Of course, China's tariff measures are not levied for nothing. As far as American soybean exports are concerned, the negative impact is mainly reflected in two aspects:

First, the export price of soybeans has been greatly frustrated. Market Watch, a news website owned by Dow Jones, recently reported that according to the official data of the US government, the export price of soybeans fell by 14% in July. It could have brought substantial harvest to American farmers, which aggravated the price drop in the context of Sino-US trade war.

Second, it is more passive in the international trade market and its bargaining power is reduced. Louis Dreyfus, the original owner of Pegasus soybean, will have to face the reality that its potential buyers in Europe and other regions may demand a bigger discount because of the tariff measures implemented by China, the Guardian reported.

Third, the grain purchasing and storage pays extra tariffs, and the amount paid is unambiguous, which shows that we strictly abide by international trade practices and domestic laws and regulations in doing business, reflecting a responsible and courageous attitude.

Of course, in the reciprocal export trade with the United States, it is also the consignee of the United States who bears the tariff. Therefore, this also shows that "there is no winner in the trade war." At this point, international public opinion is sympathetic to the "Flying Horse Peak" and understands China's counter-tariffs (the wording is mostly "tit for tat" and "responding to Washington's actions"). ), and no one laughs at us, because the buyers in China have already paid the money. Why drag yourself to be labeled as "main"?

I'm afraid China will suffer in the trade war. It is good to have this patriotic enthusiasm. However, in the field of international trade, which usually has limited intersection with most of us, we should still calmly understand it and then interpret it.

After all, it's easy for three people to become a tiger, with rhythm and vision. It's not worth hurting your confidence.