CINOA Submission Against Inclusion of HS Code 97019100 (Paintings, drawings and pastels which do not exceed an age of 100 years) in EU Proposed Tariffs as Countermeasures to the US
EU Proposed tariffs are expected to extend beyond steel and aluminum to include other U.S. origin goods such as hand-executed paintings, drawings, and pastels (HS Code 97019100) -please refer to the final page of this list).
Consultation survey question # 2: Please provide your views and information regarding the EU economic interests in products imported from the United States that may be affected by the possible EU commercial policy measures in response to the United States tariffs, as described in the notice on the information gathering.
RESPONSE SUBMITTED:
CINOA Submission Against Inclusion of HS Code 97019100 (Paintings, drawings and pastels which do not exceed an age of 100 years) in EU Countermeasures
The art and antiques sector, primarily composed of micro-businesses such as galleries, dealers, and auction houses, relies heavily on cross-border trade. Beyond its economic role, the sector enriches cultural heritage, supports conservation, and fosters creativity and education. It also generates indirect benefits, including tourism, employment, and cultural diplomacy. Imposing tariffs on the international movement of artworks would disproportionately harm cultural exchanges and the businesses involved in the trade without offering meaningful trade advantages to the EU.
CINOA, representing over 5,000 micro-businesses and leading organisations in the art and antiques trade in Europe, North America and Australia, strongly opposes the inclusion of HS Code 97019100 – hand-executed paintings, drawings, and pastels that are not more than 100 years old – in the EU’s proposed countermeasures. Inclusion of this group of objects would be ineffective in achieving the EU’s trade objectives, harming the EU art market without providing any strategic or economic benefits.
The key reasons for our opposition to imposing tariffs are:
- Art Market Realities Undermine Justification for Tariffs
- Not Mass-produced Products – Artworks are unique, one-of-a-kind creations produced by individual artists, not factories or corporations. They are not mass-produced, and do not contribute to market distortions, unlike industrial goods like steel or agricultural products. Typically bought and sold by individuals or micro- businesses, rather than large-scale manufacturers or retailers, artworks have minimal impact on trade imbalances.
- No Competitive Threat – Original artworks, such as an Edward Hopper painting created in the 1930s or a Georgia O’Keeffe painting from the 1940s are not in direct competition with works from other countries, unlike products such as US steel or agricultural goods, which face direct market competition from EU or non-EU producers. The inherent uniqueness of each artwork by a particular artist prevents traders in the EU from finding a substitute art work, making it immune to the same competitive dynamics.
- Limited U.S. Economic Harm from Secondary Market Imports – Economic harm will not accrue to the U.S. from importing artworks that left that country years ago. The country of origin of such artworks is not necessarily the country of present day export, as the art market is international. Furthermore, the vast majority of sales are on the secondary market – not made directly from their creators. Unlike direct sales from living artists, secondary market transactions often occur outside the artist’s country of origin. For example, the U.S. economy gains nothing when an EU Paris-based dealer imports an Edward Hopper painting from the UK that was exported from the U.S. decades ago. Instead, the EU Paris-based dealer loses the opportunity to profit from the sale.
- Increased Barriers to Growth – The EU art market already faces burdens from Artist Resale Rights (ARR), customs duties, export licenses, national patrimony laws, AML compliance, tax regulations and the upcoming full implementation of the Import of Cultural Goods Regulation. Additional tariffs would intensify these challenges, further weakening the EU’s global competitiveness. Small galleries, which make up most of the sector, would find it harder to compete with US and Asian markets that impose fewer restrictions. Galleries, already operating with tight margins, would struggle to maintain the variety of works needed to attract collectors.
2. Failure to Meet EU Countermeasure Criteria of Regulation (EU) No 654/2014
- Ineffective Compliance Pressure – Art transactions represent a niche market with negligible economic impact on the exporting country. Unlike steel tariffs, which can pressure major economies, restricting artwork imports would have little leverage and would primarily affect SMEs and private individuals.
- No Relief for Affected EU Sectors – The art market does not compete with mass-market goods, so tariffs on artworks do not provide any relief to EU industries struggling with economic challenges, such as manufacturing or agriculture.
- No Alternative Supply Sources – Unlike industrial or agricultural goods, artworks are unique and cannot be sourced elsewhere. A specific painting by a particular artist cannot be substituted like wheat or aluminum.
- Violation of EU Policy and Obligations – Targeting artworks could undermine the EU’s commitments to international cultural agreements, such as the EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations (2016) which promotes the free movement of cultural goods and emphasize the importance of cultural exchange and protection. Imposing tariffs on artworks may hinder international collaboration in the art sector.
3. Harm to the Already Fragile EU Art Market
- A Declining Sector –The EU art market is facing rising costs and regulatory pressures, with London’s dominance as a hub outside the EU strengthened post-Brexit. Tariffs would further accelerate this decline in the EU, pushing business toward less regulated markets in the US, UK, Switzerland and China.
- Market Contraction – Higher costs would deter imports, reducing sales for galleries, dealers, and auction houses, and limiting acquisitions for museums and collectors. Given that many the world’s leading artists of the 20th Century had American nationality, such tariffs would restrict access to significant works, limiting the diversity and dynamism of the EU art market.
- Peril for Niche Galleries Focused on U.S. Artworks Under 100 Years Old – Imposing tariffs on the import of U.S. modern and contemporary artworks into the EU would severely impact a small but significant niche of galleries specializing in this field. Absorbing the additional duty costs would be challenging, threatening their viability and livelihoods. As a result, many may be forced to relocate their business to non-EU jurisdictions.
- Adverse Effects on Major European Art Fairs – Major European contemporary art fairs like Art Paris and Paris+ Art Basel Paris (France), Art Brussels (Belgium) and TEFAF Maastricht (The Netherlands), which rely heavily on international imports often from the USA, would face higher costs, reducing market participation and limiting cultural diversity in exhibitions. For example in 2019, 32% of the world’s top 130+ fairs were held in the EU. Art fairs drive collector spending and boost the tourism and hospitality industries across the EU. U.S. dealers, crucial for fostering diversity, invest heavily in travel and accommodation but may be deterred from participating. Likewise, collectors seeking U.S. imported works could be less inclined to attend.
4. Negative Impact on EU Businesses and Cultural Exchanges
- Harm to Art Trade and Cultural Exchange – Tariffs would restrict access to artworks, weakening the EU’s position as a global art hub. The long-standing exchange between the EU and U.S. art scenes has fostered museum acquisitions, gallery collaborations, and artist residencies. Imposing tariffs would limit these opportunities, particularly for U.S.-based contemporary and emerging artists, leading to a narrower range of exhibitions and reducing artistic dialogue. This disruption would hinder transatlantic cultural exchange and diminish the global flow of artistic inspiration that drives the art market.
- Ripple Effects Across Related Sectors – Lower import volumes may negatively impact ancillary industries—such as logistics, storage, conservation and insurance—resulting in broader economic consequences, including potential job losses. Additionally, industries, such as tourism and restaurants, could be adversely affected. Museums, galleries, and cultural events attract tourists, and a decline in art imports could result in fewer visitors, reducing revenue for EU businesses.
Conclusion
Targeting HS Code 97019100 is economically ineffective and damaging to EU interests, and because many artworks, including those by living American artists, are currently located outside the US, any EU tariffs levied on such works will cause no harm to the US economy. The EU art market is already fragile, facing rising costs and regulatory pressures. Imposing tariffs would further weaken it without advancing the EU’s trade objectives. We urge the removal of this HS code from the countermeasures list to ensure an effective, proportionate response that does not harm cultural and economic interests.
***