SA exports hit with 30% tariff as US rejects trade deal
The Witness reports that the White House announced yesterday that the new 'reciprocal' tariff rate will come into effect in seven days.
This forms part of US President Donald Trump's broader tariff policy targeting 70 countries that have failed to finalise trade agreements with the US.
South Africa's offer to avoid the hike has been rejected, including natural gas imports from the US, seasonal access for American agricultural products, and R60bin local investment pledges.
In a letter, dated July 7, to President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump warned that unless an agreement was reached, all South African goods would be hit with a blanket 30% tariff.
The US has since dismissed South Africa's revised trade offers in May and June.
For local exporters, the new duties are a blow to the advantages previously granted under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allowed many SA goods, including vehicles and citrus, to enter the US market duty-free.
The Trump administration had already announced a 31% tariff on South African goods in April, but this was suspended for 90 days, with the US temporarily applying a 10% tariff instead. That grace period is now over.
Other countries affected include Switzerland (with tariffs rising to 39%) and Canada (35%). Lesotho, however, saw its tariff reduced from 50% in April to 15%.
South Africa's unsuccessful offers included duty-free quotas for US steel and vehicles, seasonal market access for US farmers, and the removal of non-tariff barriers such as restrictions on poultry and pork imports due to animal illness concerns.
Additionally, the government committed to attracting R60b in investment into US-linked industries such as mining and recycling.
Zane Dangor, director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, confirmed that the US has raised concerns over South Africa's black economic empowerment policies as part of the trade negotiations.
'We understand that these tariffs are going to place severe strain on exporters,' said one local trade analyst.
'The rejection of our revised offer leaves little room for manoeuvre.'
The new tariffs are expected to significantly raise the cost of South African exports to the US, reducing competitiveness and threatening jobs in key export sectors.
Read original story on witness.co.za
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
44 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
Trump threatens takeover of Washington, DC, with National Guard to fight crime
'We have a capital that's very unsafe,' Trump told reporters at the White House. 'We have to run D.C. This has to be the best-run place in the country.' Trump, who has threatened a federal takeover of the city multiple times, renewed those threats after a young staffer who was part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency was assaulted over the weekend. Musk, the billionaire former adviser to Trump who once spearheaded the DOGE effort, said the man was beaten and received a concussion. 'It is time to federalize DC,' he wrote. Asked if he was considering taking over the D.C. police, Trump responded affirmatively. 'We just almost lost a young man, beautiful handsome guy that got the hell knocked out of him,' Trump said. The president posted a picture of the victim, Edward Coristine, known by the nickname 'Big Balls,' on social media, with blood on his face, arms, torso and legs. 'We're going to beautify the city. We're going to make it beautiful. And what a shame, the rate of crime, the rate of muggings, killings and everything else. We're not going to let it. And that includes bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly, too,' Trump said. A spokesman for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser declined to comment. Violent crime in the first seven months of 2025 was down by 26% in D.C. compared to last year while overall crime was down about 7%, according to records on the police department's website. Overall crime was down 15% in 2024, compared to 2023, the website showed. The District of Columbia was established in 1790 with land from neighboring Virginia and Maryland. Congress has control of its budget, but resident voters elect a mayor and city council, thanks to a law known as the Home Rule Act. For Trump to take over the city, Congress likely would have to pass a law revoking that act, which Trump would have to sign. The president said on Wednesday that lawyers were already looking at overturning the Home Rule Act.
Daily Maverick
44 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
Trump administration shifts FEMA staff to ICE during hurricane season
By Ted Hesson and Nathan Layne The Department of Homeland Security, the parent of both FEMA and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, sent notices to affected employees directing them to accept the transfer to ICE or potentially face termination. The Washington Post reported that DHS transferred more than 100 people to ICE from its human resources department and security team, citing current and former officials familiar with the reassignments. Reuters was not able to determine the number of affected staff. The timing of the transfers could leave FEMA understaffed at a critical moment, former FEMA officials warned, potentially hampering disaster response during the height of hurricane season. 'DHS is adopting an all-hands-on-deck strategy to recruit 10,000 new ICE agents,' department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'To support this effort, select FEMA employees will temporarily be detailed to ICE for 90 days to assist with hiring and vetting. Their deployment will NOT disrupt FEMA's critical operations.' The transfers come as President Donald Trump seeks to expand immigration enforcement, a cornerstone of his administration's agenda, while FEMA is facing staffing shortages after thousands of staffers, including a raft of senior officials, resigned, accepted incentives to leave or were fired. MASS HIRING Trump aims to deport record numbers of immigrants in the U.S. illegally. A spending package passed by the Republican-led Congress in July provides a massive funding increase for ICE, including money to hire 10,000 new ICE officers over five years. ICE has been trying to bring back retired personnel and lure officers from other law enforcement agencies. At the same time, the Trump administration has floated the idea of shrinking or shutting down FEMA entirely. FEMA employees who received transfer orders were told they needed to accept or decline the reassignment within seven days, according to notices seen by Reuters. If they declined or failed to report for duty they could be fired, the notices said. FEMA employees have been deployed to other parts of DHS before, including to help with immigration efforts, but it has been on a voluntary basis, according to Deanne Criswell, who headed FEMA during President Joe Biden's administration. Citing the wording of the notices, Criswell said she was worried the reassignments were not voluntary and that many affected staff would decline, exacerbating staffing shortage ahead of the Atlantic hurricane season's peak next month. FEMA's human resources and security staff are critical to contracting with and vetting local companies and people to respond to a disaster. 'They're already short staffed because they've lost so many. Are they going to be able to get them back? That would be my concern,' Criswell said.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
The JSE displays an unhealthy obsession with secrecy
When a company lost big on the stock market in 2020 and suspected possible market manipulation, it attempted to get information from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The JSE stonewalled them, baldly citing privacy and commercial confidentiality issues. This story of one company fighting to access information from a South African public body is playing out every day, across all spheres of government, and illustrates a culture of secrecy in our public administration. Five years ago, a small company, Inhlanhla Ventures, was placed in a difficult financial position. It had been investing in shares on the stock market through a broker. As part of their agreement, the broker would provide credit to Inhlanhla to invest – and then hold shares as security for those loans. However, if the value of any shares held as security dropped below a certain percentage, the broker was entitled to demand additional security or repayment of the debt. If Inhlanhla failed to comply, the broker would be entitled to take ownership of the shares held by it in settlement of Inhlanhla's debt. During the first quarter of 2020, the broker at that point held all the shares owned by Inhlanhla as security. A substantial part consisted of shares in enX Group Limited, a public company listed on the JSE. In May 2020, as a result of an unexpected, rapid and substantial decline in the price of the shares in the Inhlanhla portfolio, particularly the enX share price, Inhlanhla realised that the broker would be entitled to foreclose on the bulk of Inhlanhla's securities. Given the decline of the enX shares, which dropped from 700c per share at the beginning of April to as low as 320c per share on 14 May 2020, Inhlanhla was left with little option other than to relinquish its portfolio to the broker. However, a couple of days after the broker assumed ownership of those shares, the share price rose significantly, meaning the broker benefited handsomely. A rat? Inhlanhla thought it smelled a rat. By examining the trade in enX shares between April and June 2020, Inhlanhla believed that there were grounds to suspect market manipulation. If that was the case, Inhlanhla might be entitled to restitution for the losses it suffered. But it did not have access to the details of all the trades made in respect of the shares, and so it could not get conclusive proof to back up its suspicions. And so, Inhlanhla filed a request for access to information on the identities of the buyers and sellers of the shares and the sale values with the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia). They also narrowed down their focus to the key period from 3 May to 19 May 2020. Public body The JSE is a public body and gets its powers and responsibilities from the Financial Markets Act (FMA). It – like all public and private bodies – is bound by Paia and so must disclose any information requested unless there is a legitimate ground (as set out in the legislation) for it to refuse the request. The JSE refused the Paia request from Inhlanhla, stating baldly that the information sought contained personal, confidential or commercial information and it was prohibited by the FMA and Paia from disclosing such information. As we have previously explained, the Information Regulator (IR) is a new body to which someone unsatisfied with a refusal of their Paia request can file a complaint. Believing that the JSE was incorrect in refusing their request, Inhlanhla approached the regulator. The Information Regulator investigates The IR issued an investigation report, finding that the JSE had no justification in refusing the request, ordering it to disclose the requested information to Inhlanhla. However, this order remains preliminary and Inhlanhla is waiting for a final decision from the IR's enforcement committee. In any case, lawyers acting for the JSE have already written to Inhlanhla, putting the company on notice that if the regulator rules in Inhlanhla's favour, the JSE will go to court to review that decision. This is why this story of one company seeking to get information from one public body in 2020 is relevant. The experience of Inhlanhla is just one example that illustrates South Africa's broken access to information system and how a culture of secrecy within our powerful institutions operates to stymie accountability. Similar stories happen every day, all over the country, with all sorts of public bodies. Municipalities, national government departments and state-owned entities all regularly refuse Paia requests, often based on a misguided interpretation of the law. Although the IR provides a useful mechanism before having to go to court, the delays in accessing the information sought are often ruinous or make the information eventually disclosed irrelevant because of the passage of time. The JSE's trite response The reasons given by the JSE in its refusal of the Inhlanhla request are also reasons we see repeatedly. One common refrain we hear from public bodies is that they cannot disclose the information because doing so would violate a statutory obligation they hold to protect personal, private or confidential information. Often, the public body refers to the Protection of Personal Information Act. Here, the JSE also said that the FMA prevented it from disclosing any confidential information. But this must be a misreading of the law, as Parliament could not have intended the FMA to act as a justification to refuse Paia requests. And, in fact, Parliament did not exclude Paia from the obligations under the FMA. The Act states that confidential information cannot be disclosed 'unless disclosure is required or permitted in terms of a law or court order'. Paia is one of those laws. The IR, in its investigation report, confirmed that one of the objectives of Paia is to 'promote transparency, accountability and effective governance'. It is a vital cog in the constitutional framework which enables citizens to hold powerful institutions, government bodies and individuals to account. The JSE's reliance on the FMA is a betrayal of these principles. The JSE's stance is particularly galling, because as the IR's investigation report points out, its claims of blanket confidentiality on the details of who trades shares in listed companies, exactly when they do it, and how much they pay, go to the heart of a transparent market – especially when there are claims of market manipulation. As the IR report notes, our courts have emphasised the non-private nature of how companies conduct their affairs, especially when they involve publicly traded securities. The FMA, the regulator said, also supports this principle by promoting transparency in the financial markets. Early in South Africa's constitutional democracy, the Constitutional Court, in Bernstein v Bester, explained that a company's business was not a purely private matter. The Supreme Court of Appeal, in Nova Property Holdings v Cobbett, confirmed that this principle extended to companies' securities registers, which were 'not inherently private'. The IR investigation found that disclosure of information in this case was not unreasonable, as it pertained to market activities conducted under the regulatory oversight of the JSE. Commercial harm? The JSE also stated that it could not provide the information that Inhlanhla sought because to do so would violate the mandatory protection of commercial information of a third party. This is also an oft-seen tactic – the bald claim that commercial harm would result from the disclosure of the information. The IR stressed that a public body cannot make this claim as a 'mere assertion' and had to provide evidence of how disclosure would actually harm the relevant third party. But, despite the multiple court judgments explaining that disclosure of information must be the default and that access to information should be granted unless valid, specific and justified grounds for its refusal exist, public bodies like the JSE continue to issue bald refusals – and so the IR investigation rejected this claim, too. The JSE also claimed it owed a duty of confidentiality to third parties and so could refuse disclosure in terms of Paia. However, the JSE failed to seek third-party consent (as it was obliged to) and also failed to identify any agreement with third parties which provided such an undertaking of confidentiality – again, leading the IR investigator to reject the JSE's reliance on the ground of refusal. Public interest override Paia provides that, notwithstanding other prohibitions, the public body must assess whether the disclosure of the records would reveal evidence of a substantial contravention of, or failure to comply with, the law and whether the public interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the harm contemplated in the grounds of refusal. The IR investigation noted that Inhlanhla had furnished the JSE with an analysis of the Traded enX Shares over the period 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020 and that it had clearly invoked concerns regarding 'substantial contravention of the law', in the form of market manipulation. The IR took the view that the JSE had simply not properly engaged in the balancing exercise required by Paia to determine whether the public interest override would apply, and found that mandatory disclosure in the public interest was relevant or applicable under the circumstances. Where to from here? As mentioned earlier, the IR enforcement committee still needs to review and make a determination on the investigator's preliminary report. After that, either party can take the IR decision to court – as the JSE has already indicated it will do if it is ordered to make the requested disclosures. As the Inhlanhla story demonstrates, the process to challenge a refusal is so onerous and so lengthy that often someone seeking access to information is forced to give up. It's hard not to think that the public bodies know this and so know that – despite their misreading of the law and judicial precedent – their refusals of the public's Paia requests will probably go unchallenged. With public bodies defaulting to secrecy rather than transparency, and our access to information mechanisms taking years to resolve complaints, is it any wonder that we're in an accountability vacuum in South Africa? DM
