You are an employee of a US firm that produces personal computers in Thailand and then exports them to the US and other countries for sale. The personal computers were originally produced in Thailand to take advantage of relatively low labor costs and a skilled workforce. Other possible locations considered at that time were Malaysia and Hong Kong. The US government decides to impose punitive 100% ad valorem tariffs on imports of computers from Thailand to punish the country for administrative trade barriers that restrict US exports to Thailand. 1. How do you think your firm should respond? 2. What does this tell you about the use of targeted trade barriers?

In the case that the United States imposes punitive 100 percent ad valorem tariffs, the entire cost of the import is taxed.
There are various reasons why the government would want to impose tariffs, with the main reason in this case being that the government is trying to punish Thailand for their trade barriers against US exports. Since a political agenda is the only reason for the tariff, the firm can conclude that there is no defect in the actual product coming from Thailand.
There are various ways the firm could respond. Since there is no defect in Thailand’s computers, the firm could turn to the World Trade Organization to settle the trade dispute in order to further reap the benefits of Thailand’s efficiency and cheap labor costs.
Another way the firm could respond is to revisit Malaysia and Hong Kong as possible locations for future computer production. This option is risky since there is no guarantee that the computers will be of the same quality as Thailand’s. The labor could also cost more, thus affecting the overall cost of the computers. This affects the consumers in the sense that they could be charged more money, or they might not receive the same quality computer that they were used to.
The use of targeted trade barriers tends to affect the consumers of a certain product and not the producers. The manufacturers can easily migrate to another location for labor; however, it is the consumer that will need to pay for the potential difference in price or quality.
http://fbemoodle.emu.edu.tr/course/view.php?id=1441

Possible Response of U.S. Firm
A U.S. firm responding to a U.S. ad valorem tariff (product value tariff) imposed on a country to where the manufacture of the firm's product is outsourced might be (1) a relocation to a free trade zone (FTZ) or (2) a political appeal through lobbying to have the punitive tariff repealed. Since the newly imposed U.S. tariff--adding a duty at 100 percent of the value of the computer--is a retaliation for a Thai administrative trade barrier that adopts rules for regulating U.S. imports into Thailand, the U.S. computer firm can escape the consequences of the governmental policy issue by moving manufacturing to Malaysia or Hong Kong (alternative early contenders). Such a relocation is not unprecedented as shown by the (economically and environmentally disasterous) removal of electronics companies from Mexico's maquiladoras, after their boom in the late 1990s, to relocate in Asia to take advantage of lower costs.Another option is to focus on lobbying in the political arena for the reduction of punitive trade barriers. One strategy would be lobbying to incentivize Thailand's importation of U.S. goods through an appropriate means. Another strategy would be to aim to focus attention in bilateral talks on reducing subsidiaries, regarding such reduction as an economic priority.
Targeted Trade Barriers
Economists generally agree that targeted trade barriers restrict economic growth, causing global demand to decline and threatening global market stability. An example of this occurred in 2009 when Mexico retaliated against U.S. cancellation of a Mexico-U.S. agreement regarding Mexican truck drivers. Examining targeted trade barriers and potential responses tells us that protectionist trade policies and targeted trade barriers carry negative ramifications for the health of the global market.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-trade/State-interference-in-international-trade