Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the Chinese trade myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

China’s export growth missed expectations last month in dollar terms, in what analysts said was a signal to policymakers that their heavy dependence on trade to overcome a weak domestic economy may be facing growing risks.

In contrast to exports, imports rose sharply, reversing previous falls as industry procured machinery and capital goods to sustain rising investment.

Exports rose 7 per cent year on year in dollar terms in July, according to official data released by China’s General Administration of Customs on Wednesday, lower than an 8.6 per cent rise in June. A Reuters poll of analysts had forecast growth of 9.7 per cent.

Imports rose 7.2 per cent, far outpacing the 3.5 per cent growth predicted by the Reuters poll and up from a decline of 2.3 per cent year on year in June.

“[Chinese policymakers] will probably look at this and think the export engine is probably going to slow down sooner than they thought,” said Louise Loo, lead economist at Oxford Economics.

China’s economy has depended on trade and industrial output to offset a prolonged real estate downturn and souring local government finances, which have knocked consumer confidence and household spending.

Investor confidence has also been hit by government crackdowns and Beijing’s insistence on providing only an incremental stimulus, rather than a big bang, to reach its official economic growth target of 5 per cent.

President Xi Jinping has set out a vision of lifting productivity through investment in advanced technology, manufacturing and innovation, with state banks pumping lending into industry rather than stimulating domestic demand.

This has led to disinflationary pressures in the economy, with lower prices supercharging the competitiveness of China’s exports at a time when developed markets are wrestling with higher inflation.

Loo said Chinese industry had probably front-loaded exports in the first part of the year in anticipation of possible tariffs and uncertainty about the US presidential election, as well as weaker external demand as the American economy softens.

“The problem is that the external demand story has never been, in our view, a permanent driver, it was always going to fade,” she said. “It’s just about timing the end of that boom.”

Heron Lim, an economist with Moody’s Analytics, said July’s weaker than expected export figure could be partly down to rising trade protectionism hitting Chinese products, including automobiles.

This was happening not only in developed markets such as the US and the EU, which have increased tariffs on electric vehicles, but also across different products and developing countries.

“We are definitely expecting more to come in terms of stimulus,” he said, pointing to expectations of monetary easing and other measures in the second half of the year.

However, Lynn Song, chief economist for greater China at ING, noted that exports increased in volume terms, particularly in areas such as automobiles, while prices were lower.

“I think the disappointing export data is actually more tied to price competition,” he said, adding that some areas showed stronger activity, such as household electronics and semiconductor exports.

“It’s not a broad-based, big external demand slowdown,” he said, adding “export value has slumped and that’s probably dragging on the numbers a bit.”

Song also pointed out that imports were being driven by demand for auto parts from electric vehicle industries, as well as by China’s drives to upgrade industry and achieve technological self-sufficiency.

“There’s quite a lot of demand for high tech imports, semiconductors as well as automatic data processing equipment,” he said.

“I think one mistake would be to attribute [the import rebound] to a really strong recovery of household demand, because you can see that overall other imports are still quite weak.”

SILVER SPRING, Md. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s decade-old ban on military-style firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons.

A majority of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges rejected gun rights groups’ arguments that Maryland’s 2013 law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case in May, when the full 4th Circuit was still considering it. Maryland officials argued the Supreme Court should defer to the lower court before taking any action, but the plaintiffs said the appeals court was taking too long to rule.

Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012. It bans dozens of firearms — including the AR-15, the AK-47 and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle — and puts a 10-round limit on gun magazines.

The Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., one of the plaintiffs challenging Maryland’s law, said it would again ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

“Our objective is simple: End all bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ nationwide. And we look forward to doing just that,” coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement.

The 4th Circuit’s full roster of judges agreed to consider the case after a three-judge panel heard oral arguments but hadn’t yet issued a ruling.

The weapons banned by Maryland’s law fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are essentially military-style weapons “designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation,” Wilkinson wrote. “It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.”

Eight other 4th Circuit judges joined Wilkinson’s majority opinion. Five other judges from the Virginia-based appeals court joined in a dissenting opinion.

The law’s opponents argue it’s unconstitutional because such weapons are already in common use. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Julius Richardson said the court’s majority “misconstrues the nature of the banned weapons to demean their lawful functions and exaggerate their unlawful uses.”

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal,” Richardson wrote.

Wilkinson said the dissenting judges are in favor of “creating a near absolute Second Amendment right in a near vacuum,” striking “a profound blow to the basic obligation of government to ensure the safety of the governed.

“Arms upon arms would be permitted in what can only be described as a stampede toward the disablement of our democracy in these most dangerous of times,” Wilkinson wrote.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown praised the court’s decision.

“The Court’s decision today will save lives,” Brown said in a statement. “Access to weapons of war that have no place in our communities causes senseless and preventable deaths.”

The latest challenge to the assault weapons ban comes under consideration following a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.” That 6-3 decision signified a major expansion of gun rights following a series of mass shootings.

With its conservative justices in the majority and liberals in dissent, the court struck down a New York law and said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. It also required gun policies to fall in line with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The 4th Circuit previously declared the ban constitutional in a 2017 ruling, saying the guns banned under Maryland’s law aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court in that majority opinion, calling the law “precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court.”

The court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge in March. It’s one of two cases on gun rights out of Maryland that the federal appeals court took up around the same time. The other is a challenge to Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.

Separately, a federal judge last week ruled that a 2023 Maryland law can’t prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms in bars and restaurants and in private buildings without the owner’s permission. However, Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell upheld other gun restrictions in the state law. Those include bans on carrying firearms in health care facilities, schools, government buildings, amusement parks, mass transit facilities, race tracks, casinos, museums, state parks and stadiums.

Maryland lawmakers approved the law last year in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York law that was very similar to Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” standard for permits to carry concealed handguns.

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

The stories that matter on money and politics in the race for the White House

China is to impose controls on the production of critical chemicals for the manufacture of fentanyl, in a sign of rising co-operation between Beijing and Washington over efforts to crack down on the deadly synthetic opioid.

The Biden administration on Tuesday said China would impose regulations and controls on three essential chemicals used in fentanyl from September.

The move — a process known as “scheduling” — marks the first time China will impose restrictions on the production of ingredients for the drug in six years.

The White House said it was a “valuable step forward” that followed a meeting between senior US and Chinese officials in Washington last week.

Washington has been pressing Beijing for several years to crack down on the production of ingredients used in fentanyl, which it estimates claimed the lives of almost 75,000 Americans in 2023.

US officials say the illicit drug has become the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.

The enhanced US-China co-operation stems from an agreement reached between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping at a summit in San Francisco in November 2023.

The two leaders agreed to create a working group to tackle the fentanyl issue as part of an effort to stabilise turbulent relations between the two powers.

In 2019, China took measures to stem exports of fentanyl to the US, causing Chinese groups to shift their focus to making the chemicals needed to produce the drug. They have been sending the chemicals to cartels in Mexico which produce fentanyl for distribution in the US market.

In a statement, the Chinese government said it would subject three chemical ingredients — 4-AP, 1-boc-4-AP, and Norfentanyl — to controls from September 1.

“China has always attached great importance to international counter-narcotics co-operation and is willing to co-operate with countries worldwide including the United States,” said Liu Pengyu, the Chinese embassy spokesperson in Washington. “We hope that the US side can work with China in the same direction, and continue our co-operation based on mutual respect, managing differences, and mutual benefits.”

UN member states in 2022 agreed to impose international controls on the same chemicals, but China had until now not subject them to corresponding domestic controls.

Congress has become increasingly vocal in its criticism of China over the fentanyl crisis.

In a report in April, the House China committee blamed Beijing for the fentanyl epidemic and accused it of creating programmes to reward companies for exporting fentanyl and other illegal drugs to the US. The Chinese government has rejected the accusation.

Fentanyl is expected to be a significant election issue as vice-president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump battle for the White House.

According to a Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll earlier this year, 44 per cent of respondents said the approach to the drug was a “very important” in deciding who they would vote for in November.

The Biden administration last week urged Congress to pass legislation that would designate fentanyl-related substances as “Schedule I” drugs — which have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse — that would lead to higher penalties for distribution and possession.